Bigot businessowner punishes peaceful marijuana users

[musterion]

I think he needs to grow up and take some personal responsibility. He wasn't losing employees because of pot. He was choosing to fire people who didn't meet his expectations. That's his choice, and he's welcome to make it, but he doesn't get to pass the blame for it to other people. Should the government move in with their heavy hands to force people to be the kind of people he wants to employ?

As you say, his business his rules, and I thank you for affirming that.

I see no reason to believe he lied about potheads. There's much simpler ways to make a personal statement against pot than going through the immense trouble of shutting down and moving cross country, as some conspirators seem to think. Was it the only business problem he was having? Likely not. But no reason to believe it wasn't already a problem that was sure to get worse.

I'll lay even money this won't be the last time it happens.

 

[Lighthouse]

If you work in a public place, it is illegal currently. Public consumption and public intoxication are still illegal in CO.

And the potheads didn't seem to care. What's your point?

 

[shagster01]

And the potheads didn't seem to care. What's your point?

That is my point. Laws aren't going to affect anything. Just like gun laws won't stop people from getting guns.

 

[shagster01]

As you say, his business his rules, and I thank you for affirming that.

I see no reason to believe he lied about potheads. There's much simpler ways to make a personal statement against pot than going through the immense trouble of shutting down and moving cross country, as some conspirators seem to think. Was it the only business problem he was having? Likely not. But no reason to believe it wasn't already a problem that was sure to get worse.

I'll lay even money this won't be the last time it happens.

I'm curious how this went down. Did half of his staff manage to cheat a drug test? Did half his staff not smoke pot until after they started working there? Or did he not test at all upon hiring and wonder why he got who he got?

The 3rd one seems the most likely.

 

[Lighthouse]

That is my point. Laws aren't going to affect anything. Just like gun laws won't stop people from getting guns.

:doh:

They may well change whether or not a pothead shows up to work high.

I'm curious how this went down. Did half of his staff manage to cheat a drug test? Did half his staff not smoke pot until after they started working there? Or did he not test at all upon hiring and wonder why he got who he got?

The 3rd one seems the most likely.

Maybe he didn't care if they smoked pot on their own time as long as they didn't come to work high; and then the law changed and they started coming to work high.

 

[shagster01]

:doh:

They may well change whether or not a pothead shows up to work high.


Maybe he didn't care if they smoked pot on their own time as long as they didn't come to work high; and then the law changed and they started coming to work high.

No law changed. Going to work high is STILL ILLEGAL.

 

[Lighthouse]

No law changed. Going to work high is STILL ILLEGAL.

Just because that law didn't change doesn't mean other laws didn't change, imbecile.

 

[Rusha]

It might have saved time and money to require drug testing for all new hires and random drug tests for current employees.

I don't think moving to a different state is going to make a difference.

 

[Granite]

It might have saved time and money to require drug testing for all new hires and random drug tests for current employees.

I don't think moving to a different state is going to make a difference.

This guy didn't do his diligence and it came back to bite him. End of the day it's his own fault.

 

[Granite]

You really don't realize what a giant hole of stupid you keep digging yourself into.

Uh--sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. It's much safer (if still not a great idea) to drive high rather than drunk.

http://time.com/3706491/driving-stoned-drunk-study-safety/

 

[shagster01]

Just because that law didn't change doesn't mean other laws didn't change, imbecile.

So? The law says we can smoke weed at home. Not in public.

The law says we can walk around inside our own houses nude too. Yet you don't seem concerned that that leads to people thinking it's OK to go to work in the nude.

My point. . . Law breakers will break the law. Law abiders will not. And the law says weed must be kept in private.

 

[Lighthouse]

So? The law says we can smoke weed at home. Not in public.

The law says we can walk around inside our own houses nude too. Yet you don't seem concerned that that leads to people thinking it's OK to go to work in the nude.

My point. . . Law breakers will break the law. Law abiders will not. And the law says weed must be kept in private.

They weren't smoking weed at work. They were smoking it at home and then coming to work already high, moron.

P.S.
"Abiders" is not a word.

 

[shagster01]

They weren't smoking weed at work. They were smoking it at home and then coming to work already high, moron.

P.S.
"Abiders" is not a word.

If they were driving to work, they broke the law.

No matter how you slice it, more laws won't help. They were already breaking the ones that do exist.

Do you agree they broke laws? If so, what will more laws do?

 

[Granite]

If they were driving to work, they broke the law.

No matter how you slice it, more laws won't help. They were already breaking the ones that do exist.

Do you agree they broke laws? If so, what will more laws do?

They have zero problem using this exact same rationale when they oppose gun control, but miss the mark completely on this particular issue.

 

[shagster01]

They have zero problem using this exact same rationale when they oppose gun control, but miss the mark completely on this particular issue.

I've pointed that out before and all they can answer with is negative rep.

 

[Rusha]

If they were driving to work, they broke the law.

No matter how you slice it, more laws won't help. They were already breaking the ones that do exist.

Do you agree they broke laws? If so, what will more laws do?

They have zero problem using this exact same rationale when they oppose gun control, but miss the mark completely on this particular issue.

Considering the fact that it's fairly easy to spot someone who comes to work stoned, I would be more concerned about those who are high on prescription meds.

 

[Lighthouse]

If they were driving to work, they broke the law.

Did I say they weren't?

No matter how you slice it, more laws won't help. They were already breaking the ones that do exist.

Do you agree they broke laws? If so, what will more laws do?

I never said more laws were the answer.

The problem was the legalization of pot in the first place. Fewer people were driving and/or going to work high when it wasn't legal to get high at home. That's just the fact of the matter.

And before you try to argue that that's another law, they had to add new laws when they legalized it in order to make it illegal to drive while under the influence of marijuana; because it was already technically illegal to do so because it was illegal to get high in the first place. No extraneous laws necessary.

 

[musterion]

It might have saved time and money to require drug testing for all new hires and random drug tests for current employees.

I bet he already had it in place.

I don't think moving to a different state is going to make a difference.

Sure it will. Being illegal in SC, fewer will use it.

 

[shagster01]

Did I say they weren't?


I never said more laws were the answer.

The problem was the legalization of pot in the first place. Fewer people were driving and/or going to work high when it wasn't legal to get high at home. That's just the fact of the matter.

And before you try to argue that that's another law, they had to add new laws when they legalized it in order to make it illegal to drive while under the influence of marijuana; because it was already technically illegal to do so because it was illegal to get high in the first place. No extraneous laws necessary.

Before it was legalized in CO, it was a 100 dollar fine for possession under an ounce. That's less than most speeding tickets. Do you also think speeding tickets prevent people from speeding? If so, take a drive down I-25 today.

 

[Lighthouse]

Before it was legalized in CO, it was a 100 dollar fine for possession under an ounce. That's less than most speeding tickets. Do you also think speeding tickets prevent people from speeding? If so, take a drive down I-25 today.

They prevent some from speeding. When it was illegal to get high at all there were those who did not get high. Then it became legal and they got high. And then they were stupid and drove and/or went to work high, because they were impaired.