^
uh, yeah it does

because it's talking about their actions, not their choices

(that's why I used more than one analogy -- some with things of choice, some without)

iow, nice try, but you lose


and just to show that either you can't read, or you're just a troll

I even provided the conclusion of the analogies at the end of my post:

Quote :

"iow,....his equating being grown up with obeying, consenting, or acquiescing to immoral authority, is laughable, yet sad"

you just can't pass up the opportunity to spew your drug bigotry, can you?

1/21/2008 12:03:28 PM

not at all. im in the same boat as bobbydigital. im all for the end of prohibition, i just don't care about the cause strongly enough to stick my neck out for it.

im simply pointing out that your logic is not sound. you arent comparing apples with apples. the actions of the blacks and jews you listed were a result of being persecuted due to something they had no control over. i think that's the funadmental difference that you're overlooking.





[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 12:22 PM. Reason : l]

1/21/2008 12:20:59 PM

Quote :

"you arent comparing apples with apples"

yeah, and my sister's not a bear. …that doesn't make the analogy unsound

and it's not a simple comparison, it's an analogy

(like analogizing apples and johnny appleseed, with pot and marc emory)

you can disagree with the analogy if you like, but it is sound

Quote :

"the actions of the blacks and jews you listed were a result of being persecuted due to something they had no control over. i think that's the funadmental difference that you're overlooking."

that difference doesn't matter, because that's not what the analogy hinges on

the analogy using polytheists works exactly the same, and they have control over that choice, as do drug users

(funny how you haven't mentioned the polytheist analogy )

so you see, it's not about whether or not the persecution is over something of choice

but rather, it's about why one might decide to obey unjust rules,

about why one might surrender to the consequences of an unjust authoritarian force

(namely, to be considered grown up)


your objections to my analogy are precisely the misinterpretation of analogy I referred to earlier

instead of arguing with me, take some time to research analogies and how they work

(I've explained this before in many other threads, and everyone has eventually seen their error)

1/21/2008 1:38:11 PM

my company does random drug testing (cheek swap). They started doing this back in November 2005, and outside of baseline testing I've never been called in. Hardly anyone ever gets called in.

And then the week after New Years 4-5 people I know were called in. Random my ass, thats just a major DICK move.

1/21/2008 1:45:33 PM

Quote :

"the week after New Years"

what a bitch

1/21/2008 1:51:18 PM

Quote :

"Comparing it to civil rights is more than a stretch. Nobody's getting persecuted for their genetics here. "

no offense here, but you've obviously never picked up a book or any sort of study about drug abuse/addiction and how far the apple falls from the tree. i have...

tens of them (dont want to say hundreds, but easily could be 100). ive researched everything from the beginnings of psychological and (more importantly) physcial addiction. well you get the point, i didnt do the research to come up with the stats, but i evaluated the research. i guess you could say that i have a "bachelors in substance abuse and counseling" and am working on the "masters" when i do my own research in the groups i lead.

if they would put 20% into treatment what they put into prison sentences for end users, they could knock out so much of the addiction problem in this country. to this day i am still amazed by how many doctors, lawyers, local politicians, etc, that i have met in these places.... although i shouldnt be because, obviously, they are the ones who can afford treatment and afford to keep their ass clean and out of jail, and in a job, and with their families where they belong.

its a terrible cycle, and there is much more of a genetic predisposition than you think. i will condede that it doesnt matter until the kid ingests the drug, but all they have telling them not to is DARE, and they are teaching it at the exact ages where kids start to rebel, and stop thinking that their parents are god. users will tell you that it is a victimless crime, but i don't think that's true (and i was a user for a long time). i think that there are certainly victims, but the crime is that the system would rather take the easy way out and squeeze square pegs into the round hole that is the prison system. because it would take too much effort to create square holes (money for PRIVATE drug rehab)

anyways just a little rant.

1/21/2008 2:46:49 PM

I don't disagree with any of that, but that wasn't at all what I was arguing.

1/21/2008 3:12:00 PM

It's situations like these when I consider myself smart, instead of naive, for never having smoked cigarettes or done drugs, ever.

1/21/2008 3:19:33 PM

abuse of controlled substances is illegal

if a company chooses to test people for the use of controlled substances as part of their hiring policy, it's their call (unless it's a governemnt agency or contractor, then it's required)

if you choose to use drugs in light of the fact your future employment may be impacted by that choice, that's perfectly fine

but if you pop positive and don't get that job, don't come crying to me...same goes if you get sent to jail for having the shit on your person when you ger busted...you want rehab? do it on your own...I'd rather send someone to jail than try and force them into rehab when they clearly don't have the desire to enter it themselves

whether the laws are right or wrong, it's what they are right now. you have to live with the consequences if you break them.

but you taking a hit off a blunt isn't making the same statement as Rosa Parks not giving up her seat on the bus

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

1/21/2008 3:22:10 PM

^Many times though serious legal consequences are the wake-up call for users that their drug use has turned into drug abuse.

I'd rather spend twice the taxpayer dollars on treating users rather than locking them up.

1/21/2008 6:15:59 PM

Quote :

"I don't disagree with any of that, but that wasn't at all what I was arguing."

oh, ok.

i must have misread you or something. because you mentioned that no one was being persecuted because of genetics. just wanted to point out that theres a huge genetic predisposition there for drug use. but its ultimately up to how that person fits into society

and i thought it was really similar to the civil rights / minority discrimination thing. because holding PAST drug abuse over someones head is persecution, in my opinion.

1/22/2008 8:42:31 AM

Quote :

"holding PAST drug abuse over someones head is persecution,"

that's a VERY good point

you don't even have to be breaking the law to be judged "second class"

these drug bigots regard "drug virgins" as better people than those who used drugs in the past


personally, I don't agree with all of obama's politics,

but I respect him for demonstrating that coke users don't necessarily become loser addicts, or have "fried brains"

I do not understand people that hold his past drug use against him, unless just because it was illegal

1/22/2008 9:20:43 AM

I think it's fine to not hire people who are using drugs. As a matter of fact, I would prefer it. (On a side note, I think the term "drug bigot" is a wonderful little way of winning the semantic battle, like "pro-choice" or "putting Fido to sleep".) Does past behavior regarding drug use mean that you will use again? Not necessarily, but if you are using drugs, I would rather not have you doing any important job. And by any important job, I mean one that I am paying you for. Is it possible that you can lead a perfectly normal life and be completely responsible even though you do drugs? Sure, but I wouldn't want to take the chance if it's my company.

I am all for decriminalization of a decent amount of drugs, but the only similar comparison I can see is alcohol. I don't see the issue as a moral issue of "drugs are bad," but moreso that the law has set certain guidelines, and while I might not agree with all of them, that doesn't mean I won't respect them. There are plenty of laws that I feel should be changed, but as long as they ARE laws, meaning until we actually get enough support to change them, I will follow them. If I care enough, I'll fight to change them. I don't agree with the speed limit, either, but I don't blame the cop for giving me a ticket. It's my own damn fault and I knew what I was getting into. (Note that I don't feel this applies to laws relating to issues of right and wrong, like the civil rights movement or women's suffrage. I just don't see drugs as an absolute right or wrong issue.)

---Oh, and I personally beleive that for the most part doing drugs is just really stupid and generally self destructive. Of course, that doesn't mean I don't think everyone has to feel that way. I know it's just my opinion.

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : free]

1/22/2008 12:02:44 PM

Quote :

"There are plenty of laws that I feel should be changed, but as long as they ARE laws, meaning until we actually get enough support to change them, I will follow them."

do you know how hard alcohol lobbies to keep drugs illegal? they kinda have a huge amount of money to put in these politicians hands.

drug law isnt gonna change because people want that. i think people want that. even if they don't use. i dont use, but i sure hate the fact that there are people serving longer sentences for being addicted to drugs than commiting murder.

drug law will change when the way that candidate financing changes, which is gonna be probably never. everyone on earth could write their senator and say to legalize it, but unless everyone drops a 20 in the envelope, its not gonna happen, and alcohol is going to continue on its death spree in this country while safer drugs like pot are never gonna get a say. because there is no big pot industry out there to compete with the beer companies and the tobacco companies in the political marketplace.

its not what we want, its who will pay to get what they want. don't be silly

1/22/2008 12:14:05 PM

^^
when you're referring to "using drugs" or "doing drugs"

as being something legitimate for you to not hire someone over,

and as being "really stupid and generally self destructive",

(both in your opinion)

I'm sure you're including alcohol, right?

Quote :

"term "drug bigot" is a wonderful little way of winning the semantic battle"

well, [responsible] drug users view the decision to not hire someone based on their drug use (not necessarily abuse)

as being bigoted,

and according the definition and application of the word bigot, it is a factual and appropriate term

(if even one person, upon (accurately) being called a "drug bigot", reconsiders their prejudiced views.....if even one)

1/22/2008 1:05:58 PM

Alcohol isn't illegal. It doesn't matter if you think drugs self destructive or not. If you have no problem breaking the law to do drugs then how does the company know you won't break the law again and end up hurting them in some way?

1/22/2008 1:23:48 PM

What the fuck is responsible drug use?

How is committing a felony in any way responsible? The short answer is, it's not. Yes, you can put a spin on it however you deem necessary to make it seem like drugs are not all that bad, but it's nothing more than a grasp for straws. You're using the same dilusional logic a pedofile would use to argue that the 12 year old girl "wanted to have sex with him so it's OK." No, it's not OK. I am sure nearly every user starts his or her usage believing they are responsible users, but a very large percentage of them end up physically or mentally crippled with severe family or social problems. Sure, there are a handful of people who do these drugs who never go through this, but to rationalize the argument to legalize drugs (and I am not talking about pot) is along the same lines as legalizing drunk driving because some people are still pretty good drivers when they are intoxicated.

1/22/2008 1:32:52 PM

Quote :

"You're using the same dilusional logic a pedofile would use to argue that the 12 year old girl"

Your argument says that raping a 12 year old girl is only bad because it is illegal which is extremely flawed logic.

"Responsible drug use" is very easy to define and extends into legal drugs as well. Unless you want to say that you can't abuse legal drugs, in which case you're an even bigger moron than you appear to be.

1/22/2008 1:37:38 PM

i just wanna know if this kid got canned or not

1/22/2008 1:47:09 PM

^^^^
ok, so it's not that they're doing drugs, it's that they're breaking the law

"If you have no problem breaking the law to do drugs then how does the company know you won't break the law again and end up hurting them in some way?"

"If you have no problem breaking the law to speed 10mph over the limit then how does the company know you won't break the law again and end up hurting them in some way?"

"If you have no problem breaking the law to recieve a blowjob then how does the company know you won't break the law again and end up hurting them in some way?"

"If you have no problem breaking the law to marry your cousin then how does the company know you won't break the law again and end up hurting them in some way?"

iow



^^^
the emotion apparent in your post comes from your drug bigotry (just saying)

Quote :

"What the fuck is responsible drug use?......Sure, there are a handful of people who do these drugs who never go through this"

you answered your own question

it's as though you view drug use as a game of russian roulette, where addiction or illness strikes randomly

or that it's harm potential is so great, that it should be avoided completely, like drunk driving

an individuals intelligence, wisdom, attitude, maturity, responsibility, etc. are all factors, let's not forget

Quote :

"You're using the same dilusional logic a pedofile would use to argue that the 12 year old girl "wanted to have sex with him so it's OK." No, it's not OK."

please tell us how regarding drug use as being "not bad" is using that logic. please.

1/22/2008 1:52:03 PM

I am not going to argue with you, you're wrong. There is no way around it, as of now, doing drugs is wrong. If the law gets changed someday, then you won't be, but right now drugs are illegal, and you're wrong.

You're not Rosa Parks fighting for racial equality. You're not Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony fighting for women's suffrage. You're not Moses fighting religious persecution. What you are is a whiny child trapped in an adult's body who wants to get his way, and since you aren't getting it, you are committing a felony act. You can spin it however you want, but in the end, drugs are illegal and you are wrong for using them.

1/22/2008 2:05:46 PM

He said that drug use is not responsible because it is illegal. In the same argument he said that it is bad for the same reasons that pedophilia is bad, simply because it is illegal, not because of any moral issues.

1/22/2008 2:06:15 PM

Quote :

""If you have no problem breaking the law to speed 10mph over the limit then how does the company know you won't break the law again and end up hurting them in some way?""

If companies could find out every time I speed and start refusing to hire on that basis then I would stop speeding. Everyone knows companies drug test, but yet some people still choose to do drugs, and then freak out when the company wants to drug test them.

1/22/2008 2:08:21 PM

^^^
you're a textbook case (apt username, too)



^
how about getting head?


[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ]

1/22/2008 2:09:45 PM

How about jaywalking?
How about rolling through a stop sign?

I don't do illegal things that can be tracked. If you do, and get caught, then tough shit.

1/22/2008 2:13:43 PM

^
oic, morality doesn't determine whether a crime is right or wrong, rather it's whether one is caught

real mature, there

1/22/2008 2:19:02 PM

Quote :

"morality doesn't determine whether a crime is right or wrong"

If you commit a crime it's wrong.

1/22/2008 2:24:08 PM

Quote :

"real mature, there"

1/22/2008 2:25:57 PM

Yes, I am mature b/c I am not trying to sit here an rationalize doing drugs, speeding, etc. I admit they are wrong, but if you are going to do something wrong and you know that people can find out and you know you could be denied employment as a result then you are fucking stupid.

1/22/2008 2:26:55 PM

^

He's arguing that ethics/morality of right and wrong are different from the law. He's noting there are two rights and wrongs: Morality and Law. Morally drug use is not wrong, but by the law it is. We live in a society governed by law and all David was saying is that you know this and are fucking yourself in the process.

1/22/2008 2:32:03 PM

^^
which is why I asked you if you would discontinue receiving blowjobs if you were caught or your job could know

do you think getting a blowjob (where illegal) is wrong?

yes or no?

(according to what you said, you do)

surely there are laws that prohibit things that you don't think are wrong (outside of being illegal)

1/22/2008 2:32:33 PM

If I need to get a job or else get evicted and be forced to live on the streets then yeah, I'm pretty sure I would discontinue receiving blowjobs if that could somehow prevent me from getting a job.

1/22/2008 2:34:34 PM

Quote :

"If you commit a crime it's wrong."

That's plain stupid.

if you're speeding/run red lights to get an injured person to the hospital, you're wrong

how about the lottery? by your thinking, in North Carolina, it's WRONG to have a small $.05/$.10 poker game with friends, but it's not wrong to spend a few hundred a week on state sponsored gambling? Give me a break.

I could care less what your position is on any given issue, but this overall logic is painfully naive.


things are not wrong b/c they're illegal, things should be illegal because they are wrong...unfortunately many laws nowadays serve purposes not related to morality or right/wrong.

1/22/2008 2:35:15 PM

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=503981

1/22/2008 2:35:21 PM

^^^
you didn't answer my question:

Quote :

"do you think getting a blowjob (where illegal) is wrong? yes or no?"

Quote :

"fucking yourself in the process"

Quote :

"martyr n. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle. "

1/22/2008 2:37:24 PM

According to the law it's wrong, but morally, no, I do not think it is wrong. I still don't see where you're going with this...

1/22/2008 2:39:03 PM

^
where I was going was refuting your claim that:

Quote :

"If you commit a crime it's wrong."

now, you've said that committing a crime isn't necessarily wrong

that's all I wanted

1/22/2008 2:41:07 PM

Like Cael said, there are two different types of right and wrong. We could argue all day if something is morally wrong, but whether something is wrong in the eyes of the law is black and white for the most part.

1/22/2008 2:42:44 PM

Both of your are arguing semantics. He is just stating he will not do things that give him a high risk of not being able to have a job. It's a personal choice, whether it should or shouldn't be that way is another issue.

Given my choices in life and things I like to do, I will do everything to keep my job so I fall in the same boat.

Most drug use is a misdemeanor anyway. Still could be serious in terms of finding a job though.

[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 2:45 PM. Reason : a]

1/22/2008 2:43:44 PM

^^wrong.

in CA state law says it's OK to use weed for medicinal purposes, but the feds say no....constitutionally the feds have no say over this issue, but they continue to raid medicinal stores and harass doctors who perscribe it.....is it wrong or right?



[Edited on January 22, 2008 at 2:46 PM. Reason : ^]

1/22/2008 2:44:56 PM

Quote :

"for the most part."

1/22/2008 2:45:41 PM

Quote :

"If you commit a crime it's wrong."

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA

1/22/2008 6:02:47 PM

Well my background check came through and I was ALL good. However drug test hasn't come back in yet...scared. He says I can start right away when they get the drug test back. I have heard everything from people. Like for instances I smoked on Saturday January 12th and hit a blunt maybe 2 times. dont even remember because I was sooo drunk and thats the only reason why I did it. Took the drug test Friday the 18th and some people tell me that is too soon for it to even show up in my hair. If that is true then I am good. BUT then yu gotta go back to the last time I smoked...maybe april? 8 or so months. Pray for me people.

1/22/2008 7:53:30 PM

and then...

1/25/2008 2:29:44 PM

^^ are you going to give up the drugs?

1/25/2008 2:32:11 PM

A poor girl wants to marry, And a rich girl wants to flirt.
A rich man goes to college,And a poor man goes to work.
A drunkard wants another drink of wine,And a politician wants a vote.
I don't want much of nothin' at all,But I will take another toke.

1/25/2008 3:59:59 PM

you should smoke a bowl to calm down while waiting... you already took the test, anyway.

1/26/2008 3:22:45 PM

^i like the way you think...

1/26/2008 3:26:07 PM

This thread is making me wanna go pee.

1/26/2008 4:27:04 PM

dude, it's not coming back in your favor, i would recomend looking for another job

1/26/2008 4:36:46 PM