Ron Paul Supporters not welcome in Louisiana GOP

krenshala · Post by **krenshala** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:29 pm

pbelter wrote:There are several freedoms they haven't encroached upon yet. The first that comes to my mind is freedom of travel.

I'd say the TSA differs with you on this.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:08 pm

pbelter wrote:
The medical condition MSimon describes is called Paruresis. . .

Regardless of that I haven't seen any reasonable argument on why drugs should be illegal.

As explained, it doesn't matter that Simon is lying. Even if he were not (fat chance) he cannot pass the drug tests because he continues to use. Furthermore, he continues to live off the public dole, despite he could get a job for $40k/year in convenience store and not have to suffer any drug testing.

The best argument you can have against drug use, is the life of Simon. All completely wasted with pathetic excuses made in support. It's everyone else's fault that he sits at home getting high each day and hasn't worked in more than a decade. He's a very smart guy. Very eloquent. He's quite capable in many respects. All his talents are however wasted because he's continually wasted.

Just how much evidence do you need past that of the life of our own drug proliferators life? And apart from all the waste, we have not even begun to look at the criminal activity he claims "hurts no one".

krenshala · Post by **krenshala** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:17 pm

GIThruster wrote:
pbelter wrote:
The medical condition MSimon describes is called Paruresis. . .

Regardless of that I haven't seen any reasonable argument on why drugs should be illegal.
As explained, it doesn't matter that Simon is lying. Even if he were not (fat chance) he cannot pass the drug tests because he continues to use. Furthermore, he continues to live off the public dole, despite he could get a job for $40k/year in convenience store and not have to suffer any drug testing.

I don't know about where you live, but I had to do a piss test when i started working at a gas-station convenience store.

GIThruster wrote:The best argument you can have against drug use, is the life if Simon. All completely wasted with pathetic excuses made in support. It's everyone else's fault that he sits at home getting high each day and hasn't worked in more than a decade. He's a very smart guy. Very eloquent. He's quite capable in many respects. All his talents are however wasted because he's continually wasted.

So, if his pot use isn't even hurting himself, why does it matter that he smokes it? Let him have his job. Its people like you that think you know whats best for everyone that makes life more annoying for everyone else.

And no, I'm not saying drug use is problem free. I'm saying criminalizing drug use doesn't fix anything, it just creates more (and different) problems. I'm all for prosecuting folks that actually hurt others (rob me, get arrested for theft; kill me, get arrested for murder; run me off the road, get arrested for operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner). Drug use shouldn't be be a get out of jail free card, but it should also not be the sole reason for imprisoning someone.

GIThruster wrote:Just how much evidence do you need past that of the life of our own drug proliferators life? And apart from all the waste, we have not even begun to look at the criminal activity he claims "hurts no one".

Its only criminal because folks like you made it illegal. Walking our your back door and taking a piss on your petunias is also illegal, but it doesn't hurt anything other than the sensibilities of any neighbors that happen to see it.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:34 pm

Are you trying to insinuate that employers don't have a right to drug test their employees?

Do you have any conception at all, of the loss of income to employers over employee drug use? Are you familiar at all with the fact that drug users have fantastically higher incidence of missing work, and of lying, stealing and otherwise proving untrustworthy to their employers?

Employers absolutely have a right to drug test. Many insurance companies require this since drug users are so much more expensive to insure. And you're actually making the case that employers don't have a right to know whether their employees use drugs?

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:59 pm

Yeah and then you handle one of the many 100 USD bills with cokaine on them ( I think almost all of them do), or eat a poppy seed bagle and fail said drug test and nobody wins anything from it.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:32 pm

People don't lose their jobs for failing a single drug test, and those who regularly undergo drug testing, such as my twin brother at J&J; know to avoid poppy seeds. You're inventing nonsense scenarios in order to justify what is obviously a wrong solution.

Employers have a right to drug test and they certainly have a right to pass over and to fire those who fail such tests.

Lets be a little more specific too. IIRC, Simon was never able to land a regular job in his field because he never finished his degree. What he did was land a few outside consulting jobs. There are plenty of places like that he could continue to look for work and not have to suffer drug testing at all, just as there are thousands of small independent engineering firms that don't do drug testing. Instead of looking for work, it's far easier to live off the public dole and whine about how it's everyone else's fault.

Again, there are plenty of excuses, and as always with drug abuse, a complete lack of integrity.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:07 pm

You're inventing nonsense scenarios in order to justify what is obviously a wrong solution.

Actually it is not. Look it up before you accuse people of talking nonsense, Mr King of Nonsense!
There are several lawsuits on the matter (some of them won by the employees), where employees lost their jobs due to failing a drug test because of such circumstances. Eating a single poppy seed bagle will register in your drug test for many days. Eating other stuff containing more poppy seeds can show for as much as a week.
The cokaine thing is a lot less of an issue due to the small amounts, but it can be triggered as well because the tests are so sensitive.

Oh and if you look at my post history, then you will know that I am actually one of those against drugs... Just saying.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:20 pm

IIUC, the argument you're making reduces to an absurd argument very easily. You're saying that because a person can not only lose their job, but then sue and win in court, over flawed drug testing, that there should be no drug testing. That same argument can be used against incarceration for any and all crimes. We do indeed incarcerate innocent people through error. We want to minimize the error as much as possible and have an obligation to do so, but that does not mean we should give up incarcerating people.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:08 pm

Its only criminal because folks like you made it illegal. Walking our your back door and taking a piss on your petunias is also illegal, but it doesn't hurt anything other than the sensibilities of any neighbors that happen to see it.

Very short sighted.

So, lets say your six or ten year old daughter likes to play out back in your yard, and gets to see your neighbours dick everyday cause he likes to pee on his flowers in plain veiw of all.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:10 pm

eat a poppy seed bagle and fail said drug test

I have taken many a drug test over the years, and I have never ever worried about poppy seed bagels. I know for a fact I have eaten them of poppy seed miffins prior to tests without ever having an issue.

I am inclined to think that is a myth.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:20 pm

The cokaine thing is a lot less of an issue due to the small amounts, but it can be triggered as well because the tests are so sensitive.

This I know for sure is not true.

I had a very long and painful education at the hands of a testing expert called in as an expert witness for a board I chaired.

The tests are very sensitive, but they also have a threshold level requirement to meet criteria. And criteria requires ingestion. Just handling may (might, could, may not) register, but certainly will not meet threshold. They can tell if you have taken it or not. The only way to generate some enzyme they track to sufficient levels (can remember the name now) is by ingestion.

I can also say that I have personally handled (in my mitts) extreme volumes of pure cocaine and never "popped positive" on drug tests while being involved with such work. I will say that in handling, we were always careful to take precautions for ingestion, especially if the packaging or substance was wet. Sustained exposure to such volumes and levels of concentration WILL eventually get to you, and you will get high and pop positive. But this sort of thing is something the average Joe will NEVER encounter or even see. For our purposes, that is why we also limited exposure times. The old Time-Distance-Shielding approach.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:32 pm

ladajo wrote: I have taken many a drug test over the years, and I have never ever worried about poppy seed bagels. I know for a fact I have eaten them of poppy seed miffins prior to tests without ever having an issue.

I am inclined to think that is a myth.

My twin has been warned by his employer of 20 years that eating poppy seeds on bagals, muffins, etc. will cause a false positive in his regular drug tests, so even if this is a myth, it's one people who undergo regular drug testing are aware of.

Employees can complain if they like, about how their lives are terribly diminished for not being able to eat poppy seeds, but they do know it's their responsibility to avoid them if they want to be employed, just as they know they need to wear a suit, tie and matching socks.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:27 pm

As explained, it doesn't matter that Simon is lying. Even if he were not (fat chance) he cannot pass the drug tests because he continues to use. Furthermore, he continues to live off the public dole, despite he could get a job for $40k/year in convenience store and not have to suffer any drug testing.

Wow, you're pretty disconnected aren't you there GIT? $40k/year? Convenience store clerk? Hahah really? Let me show you the math:

$10/hr x 40 hrs a week = $400/week x 52 weeks/year = $20,800

$15/hr x 40 hrs a week = $600/week x 52 weeks/year = $31,000

Convenience store clerks make about $8-11/year btw just to clarify how far off you were..... That's darn near $20,000

To further put it into perspective, entry level system admins start between $46k/year and $55k/year depending on internship experience during college.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:35 pm

Sorry Scott but you're misquoting me.

I never said anything about a clerk. Seems obvious to me if Simon wanted to work, he could at the very least land a position as a manager in something like a Wawa store, and they pay $40k/year.

Simon doesn't work because Simon is a drug addict who would rather smoke dope and whine about how the whole world is allied against him than earn an honest living.

And just so you know, all the Wawa managers I've met the last ten years appear to be drug users too. I know for fact most of their clerks are. Seems Simon isn't much looking for work, 'cause fact is, even Wawa clerks make a lot more than people on the dole.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:36 pm

GIThruster wrote:Sorry Scott but you're misquoting me.

I never said anything about a clerk. Seems obvious to me if Simon wanted to work, he could at the very least land a position as a manager in something like a Wawa store, and they pay $40k/year.

Simon doesn't work because Simon is a drug addict who would rather smoke dope and whine about how the whole world is allied against him than earn an honest living.

I didn't misquote you, you failed to specify. There's a big difference between the two. One assumes I'm to blame for incorrectily quoting you, which I didn't. The other is that you didn't specify at what position level. According to the average in Redding, PA, he'll make ~$32k/year. On Average, store managers make ~$34k/year + or = a few k. By my assessment that's pretty dirt poor, IMHO.