Save our Children End Prohibition

[KitemanSA]

The desire for control makes people stupid. It is also possible that the stupidity is innate and is evidenced by a desire for control. More research needs to be done in that area.

Actually, I think you may have that backwards. The desire to control doesn't make folks stupid. But stupid people do finally figure out that they can't control themselves or their physical environment so get to thinking that they need to control OTHERS to succeed. I.e., stupidity breeds the desire, not the other way round.

[ladajo]

I don't do drugs and the drug war put me out of a job.

So smoking pot is not using drugs in your world?

In any event, as I understand, taking defense contracts, epsecially for classified work, requires a regular drug testing program for the contractor. So I am not sure on your take of the survival of the "40-60%". Maybe someone else can add some depth here. I am not sure about the actual coded requirements.

[MSimon]

I liked this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 51722.html

With less than 30 days until Election Day, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol got another strong endorsement for Amendment 64, the ballot measure that would end marijuana prohibition in the state and regulate it like alcohol.

At a press conference Tuesday morning, the campaign announced that more than 300 Colorado physicians from more than 65 localities across the state support Amendment 64 and are calling for a "more commonsense policy" one that stops "criminalization of adults for using a substance less harmful than alcohol," as Dr. Larry Bedard, former president of the American College of Emergency Physicians said in a statement.

The pot advocacy group was joined by Bedard as well as Dr. Bruce Madison, former associate medical director of the University Physicians, the faculty practice at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, and vice-chair of the Council on Legislation for the Colorado Medical Society as well as Dr. Christopher Unrein, past president of the Colorado Medical Society -- all of whom are among the more than 300 physicians who have signed in support of the initiative.

"As physicians we have a professional obligation to do no harm," Dr. Madison said in a statement. "But the truth is that the Colorado marijuana laws do just that, by wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in a failed War on Marijuana, by ruining thousands of lives by unnecessary arrest and incarceration, and by causing the deaths of hundreds of people killed in black-market criminal activities. I am proud to join all of the other Colorado physicians who support Amendment 64, a sensible measure whose time has come."

Well the b'tards ruined my life. I intend to return the favor. In kind. Ten thousand fold. I'm totally enjoying it. Totally. I rub my hands in glee with an evil glint in my eye and a dark smile on my face.

So who are the losers these days? Prohibitionists. Why anyone wants to remain in the loser camp for other than financial reasons is beyond me. No matter. I love a hard fight. It makes the victory sweeter. Hit me with your best shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JRgHol94Xc

[KitemanSA]

As I recall, you said that your Aerospace career was shorted lived due to your inability to pee in a bottle for drug testing..

Was it "inability" or unwillingness. I did not put in for a TS clearance because I was UNWILLING to pee in a cup like a trained sheep. I worked at the DoD because I wanted to support American freedoms thru preparation for legitimate war. I wasn't interested in supporting one of the LEAST legitimate "wars" ever, the war on drug users.

[MSimon]

I don't do drugs and the drug war put me out of a job.

So smoking pot is not using drugs in your world?

In any event, as I understand, taking defense contracts, epsecially for classified work, requires a regular drug testing program for the contractor. So I am not sure on your take of the survival of the "40-60%". Maybe someone else can add some depth here. I am not sure about the actual coded requirements.

I actually know the coded requirements because I was at a defense contractor when they were instituted and was running a department (computers) as a contractor. Talent of that kind was hard to find back in the late 70s. I was asked what the company policy should be in light of the requirements.

The rules are that drug testing for employment is not even a requirement (well it wasn't back then). All you had to do was promote a "drug free" (not counting alcohol and tobacco) work place. You did have to test if there was an accident and drug impairment (not counting alcohol) seemed to be involved (for cause). And that was what I suggested. Which was implemented.

I assume that those same rules are in place because none of the major computer companies test on the entrance of an employee. Microsoft being a case in point.

Drug testing lowers high tech productivity - with links:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -tech.html

[MSimon]

I don't smoke pot. I use tobacco though.

[ladajo]

As I recall, you said that your Aerospace career was shorted lived due to your inability to pee in a bottle for drug testing..

Was it "inability" or unwillingness. I did not put in for a TS clearance because I was UNWILLING to pee in a cup like a trained sheep. I worked at the DoD because I wanted to support American freedoms thru preparation for legitimate war. I wasn't interested in supporting one of the LEAST legitimate "wars" ever, the war on drug users.

Mike said before that it was an inability. He has also said that he would have failed due to pot use. Although, to be certain, I am not sure that the loss of that job (2 weeks or so as I recall) was on consideration for both counts, or just the inability part.

The security clearance drug testing connection is based on risk management, as is the financial background and character reference requirements. Drug use incurs an exploitation vector, just as debt, gambling habits, or other behavioral factors examined. I personally am happy that the access to sensitive information is controlled in a method to minimize risk. I would not be so happy to find out some guy (as has happened before) was using his access to sensitive information to feed bad habits or a sense of entitlement. There are plenty of bad guys out there that are extremely good at finding or creating these weaknesses and exploiting them.

[ladajo]

I don't smoke pot. I use tobacco though.

Have you not said before that you use pot?

[MSimon]

Mike said before that it was an inability. He has also said that he would have failed due to pot use.

Correct on the first count. The second count is your imagination. I would never have failed a drug test because of use.

[MSimon]

I don't smoke pot. I use tobacco though.

Have you not said before that you use pot?

Nope. You inferred that because of my acquaintance with the drug culture. I like the music.

Alcohol (once a week or less) and tobacco (hourly or oftener) are my drugs of choice.

But I intend to roll and smoke a fattie in a place in America when it becomes legal in that place. I might just take a trip to Colorado if they legalize. I might also use no matter where if I have a medical condition that indicates use might be helpful.

But no. Despite GIT's assertions - I don't use. (the misspelling of GIT was intentional).

[ladajo]

I will take you at your word. However, I will caveat that to say that I think you may have inferred heavily in the past that you did. Certainly your manic cyclic behaviour at times has indicated some sort of drug use. Maybe that is because you smoke Camel Unfiltered or something.

Either way, no matter.

[GIThruster]

I don't smoke pot. I use tobacco though.

Have you not said before that you use pot?

Simon is a user. He's accustomed to lying on a regular basis. That's what goes with the drug culture and the choice to be a criminal.

Yes, he has owned several times that he's a daily user. He only started lying about this when I started pointing attention that he doesn't work. He also has admitted several times that he lives on public assistance and feels entitled to it. Inventions about living off his retirement are all bullshit. He has also explained several times in the boards that he was never an employee of any aerospace corp doing research. He was a short term consultant who never made the company's minimum because he preferred to use drugs instead of take the drug test. The wild inventions about how he set company policy of a company he was never a part of are just the standard delusional faire that goes with a failed life. He's inventing all sorts of bullshit to prop up his ego, just as he's lying about his current drug use. This is what druggies do. Lets not act surprised.

He stated many times that he uses drugs daily, hasn't worked in 12 years and lives off public assistance right up until I started throwing his own testimony back in his face. Now he's lying about it and pretending none of these things are so.

There are fair odds that the story about him getting Bussard his funding is bullshit as well. That was a DoD grant, so what did Simon have to do with it? As for laying claim to earning the position of moderator in this forum--seems obvious to me there are no qualifications. He writes whatever he likes without regard to the intentions of the blog. How else could anyone force his pro-drug nonsense into hundreds of separate threads--literally force everyone to hear what he has to say?

He's justa druggie. Ignore him.

[paperburn1]

I don't smoke pot. I use tobacco though.

Have you not said before that you use pot?

Nope. You inferred that because of my acquaintance with the drug culture. I like the music.

Alcohol (once a week or less) and tobacco (hourly or oftener) are my drugs of choice.

But I intend to roll and smoke a fattie in a place in America when it becomes legal in that place. I might just take a trip to Colorado if they legalize. I might also use no matter where if I have a medical condition that indicates use might be helpful.

But no. Despite GIT's assertions - I don't use. (the misspelling of GIT was intentional).

Tell me what company you keep and I'll tell you what you are.

~ Miguel de Cervantes, "Don Quixote de la Mancha Part II" (1615)

[Diogenes]

Well there's that and the proven effect that it destroys ambition. So you get people like Simon who are satisfied with failed lives and living off the hard work of others so they can sit around, blog and smoke pot all day..

So now we see the REAL reason for the two prohibitions; the drunk man (stoner) won't do to work I think he should do, prohibit it so he will be a good little productive unit.

And what happens when you let your entire workforce become stoners?


This.

[GIThruster]

Pisser isn't it? I don't do drugs and the drug war put me out of a job.

Make up whatever excuses you like, but the fact is you quit school and real engineers have engineering degrees. You don't because you decided it was more important to do drugs than go to school.