PDA

View Full Version : Walmart Can Fire Medical Marijuana Users




bobbyw24
02-15-2011, 11:42 AM
As reported a few weeks ago here on Law & Daily Life, medical marijuana users face hurdles at their places of employment. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia currently permit medical marijuana use, but only two protect patients from being fired when they fail a drug test.

Courts have been left to decide the fate of medical marijuana patients in the other thirteen jurisdictions, and patients in Michigan now know where they stand.

To Walmart, medical marijuana flies in the face of its zero-tolerance policy for marijuana use amongst employees. Joseph Casias, who suffers from a brain tumor and sinus cancer, used to be one of these employees. But when Walmart found out about his medical marijuana use, he was fired. The ACLU took his case and filed suit.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2011/02/walmart-can-fire-medical-marijuana-users.html

Bruno
02-15-2011, 11:43 AM
Well, they should be able to fire anyone they want to, but still bullshit...

Yieu
02-15-2011, 11:45 AM
I kind of assumed immunity from it affecting employment was part of the deal when it is legal. I mean people suffering in pain must also be jobless?

Wesker1982
02-15-2011, 11:45 AM
Well, they should be able to fire anyone they want to, but still bullshit...

Yep

Anti Federalist
02-15-2011, 11:52 AM
So, through the political process, we gain some freedom.

Corporations, which are creatures of the state, turn right around and take that freedom away.

And if you don't like it, "Well, you could just go work somewhere else".

That does not fly in the corporate Borg/SKYNET world we live in, get run off from one company for this, and you'll never work anywhere else again, since they have full access to all your medical records.

Nope, corporate tyranny is as bad as government tyranny and both need to be put in check on a regular basis.

Human beings are not cattle to be managed and herded by either government or the almighty transnational corporation.

bobbyw24
02-15-2011, 11:54 AM
So, through the political process, we gain some freedom.

Corporations, which are creatures of the state, turn right around and take that freedom away.

And if you don't like it, "Well, you could just go work somewhere else".

That does not fly in the corporate Borg/SKYNET world we live in, get run off from one company for this, and you'll never work anywhere else again, since they have full access to all your medical records.

Nope, corporate tyranny is as bad as government tyranny and both need to be put in check on a regular basis.

Human beings are not cattle to be managed and herded by either government or the almighty transnational corporation.

Right--any time I post something like this the bank-lovers and corporation-lovers some out in droves

BamaAla
02-15-2011, 11:57 AM
That sucks for those people that get fired, but the fix is not telling businesses whom they can and cannot hire and fire or for what reason.

Bruno
02-15-2011, 11:57 AM
Right--any time I post something like this the bank-lovers and corporation-lovers some out in droves

Hope that wasn't directed at me. :)

I am not a fan of Walmart, and am a fan of marijuana and the freedom to use it. The man should not be fired by any person or corporation that claims to value its employees. But companies shouldn't be told who they can and cannot fire, either, nor who they should or should not hire.

bobbyw24
02-15-2011, 12:01 PM
No just a general rant from a leftist-leaning libertarian.

When ever I bash banks, I get people defending the big bailed-out banks.

When I tell people to screw debt collectors I am lectured about the sanctity of contracts.

I just gave a 3 hour lecture bankruptcy to new legal aid lawyers, so I am fired up

Just letting of steam.

erowe1
02-15-2011, 12:04 PM
Corporations, which are creatures of the state, turn right around and take that freedom away.


Corporations aren't creatures of the state. They're creatures of their shareholders, who, as individuals, choose to enter into an agreement with one another where certain property is shared between them and decisions about the management of that property are delegated to a board whom they elect. People who don't want to participate in such an agreement don't have to. The right that corporations have to hire and fire whomever they want is nothing but an incident of the right their shareholders as individuals have to do that.

erowe1
02-15-2011, 12:05 PM
Right--any time I post something like this the bank-lovers and corporation-lovers some out in droves

*raises hand*
Guilty.

dannno
02-15-2011, 12:05 PM
That sucks for those people that get fired, but the fix is not telling businesses whom they can and cannot hire and fire or for what reason.

Right, but beyond the whole corporations are Frankensteins of Government argument, there is also the fact that these companies don't allow medicinal cannabis use because it is considered an illicit substance by their insurer. First of all, it is not an illicit substance, it is a medicine, legalized by the state. Their 'contracts' and writings are, ehmm.. fraudulent perhaps? Also, Walmart allows its employees to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco and take prescription drugs like xanex, which have worse health effects and mental effects than cannabis.

On principle the state shouldn't be telling businesses what to do.. but a giant corporation having a blanket policy that discriminates.. hmmm.. if a corporation is a wing or creation of the state, then isn't that more like institutional discrimination?

This is a much more complicated issue than 'business rights' vs. a person's 'right to work somewhere' or something.

The bottom line is we really aren't free..

Anti Federalist
02-15-2011, 12:17 PM
Corporations aren't creatures of the state. They're creatures of their shareholders, who, as individuals, choose to enter into an agreement with one another where certain property is shared between them and decisions about the management of that property are delegated to a board whom they elect. People who don't want to participate in such an agreement don't have to. The right that corporations have to hire and fire whomever they want is nothing but an incident of the right their shareholders as individuals have to do that.

Nonsense.

The "corporation" has been granted "personhood" by the state.

I have no right, as a person, to barge into your home and tell you what you can and can not do there.

Thus, the corporation does not either, at least not when you not are actively engaged in work.

If every corporation in the nation decided tomorrow that you must attend mandatory corporate church services or force you to donate half of your earnings to Scientology, would this be just?

It is blind defense of the corporotacracy that weakens the argument and allows squishy, feel good, socialism to flourish.

pcosmar
02-15-2011, 12:20 PM
On a side note, The guy in Michigan was a well respected and hard working employee.
He was " Associate of the Year" in that Walmart store

Businesses shoot themselves in the foot with this bullshit.

"During his five years at WalMart, Casias says he went to work every day, determined to be the best.

"I gave them everything," he says. "110 percent every day. Anything they asked me to do I did. More than they asked me to do. 12 to 14 hours a day." .
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=119421&catid=14

Bruno
02-15-2011, 12:27 PM
On a side note, The guy in Michigan was a well respected and hard working employee.
He was " Associate of the Year" in that Walmart store

Businesses shoot themselves in the foot with this bullshit.

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=119421&catid=14

Total bullshit they fired this guy.

erowe1
02-15-2011, 12:31 PM
Nonsense.

The "corporation" has been granted "personhood" by the state.

They don't need the state to "grant" them personhood. That's what corporations are by definition. They act as a single entity on behalf of multiple individuals, and as such the rights they have ought to be nothing more nor less than the rights of those individuals.

Now if you wish to point out that the state has involved itself in the regulation, taxing, and granting special privileges to corporations in ways that it ought not, then I would agree fully. But the remedy to those things is only for the state to stop doing that, not for it to prohibit us as individuals from exercising our right to enter agreements with one another establishing corporations.


I have no right, as a person, to barge into your home and tell you what you can and can not do there.
No you don't. But you do have a right to use any criteria you choose for hiring and firing me. And if you and a bunch of other individuals choose to band together and form a corporation (with or without the state's help), then that corporation would also have that right.



If every corporation in the nation decided tomorrow that you must attend mandatory corporate church services or force you to donate half of your earnings to Scientology, would this be just?
Of course it would be just. I have difficulty fathoming how anyone could think otherwise.

Anti Federalist
02-15-2011, 12:40 PM
Of course it would be just. I have difficulty fathoming how anyone could think otherwise.

Well, see that's just it.

While I understand the philosophical purity of that statement, the fact of the matter is that the practical result of that is, in essence, a return to company scrip, the company store and a life of indentured servitude, in other words, slavery.

That's a tough sell to the masses, which everybody is constantly telling me we must play nice with and appeal to, if we are going to get anywhere.

"Oh, but the free market will correct that".

Yah, right, Wal Marx's business model is on the rocks...

Outside of a few "liberal" enclaves of "fair trade" coffee shops and so on, the masses pour into the Wal Marx to buy up slave labor produced junk by the tens of billions of dollars every year.

brandon
02-15-2011, 12:42 PM
I wouldn't want pot heads working for me either.(no hate) (I used to be one) (I was the laziest dude in town)

pcosmar
02-15-2011, 12:55 PM
I wouldn't want pot heads working for me either.(no hate) (I used to be one) (I was the laziest dude in town)

I have had a few (Pot Smoking) employers. Professionals in different trades, that most folk would have a hard time keeping up with.
Your statement does not apply to my real world experience.

Icymudpuppy
02-15-2011, 12:58 PM
I don't care what my employees do in their off time, but the minute it affects their job performance, they can expect action. Of course, I don't insure either, so maybe that's the difference. Demand benefits, and your employer may start butting into your personal life.

bobbyw24
02-15-2011, 12:58 PM
I think Ron Paul introdcues these bills so that people who need medical marijuana get fired.

Federal Medical Marijuana Bill Introduced by Rep. Ron Paul


Washington, DC: Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced H.R. 5842, the “Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act,” earlier today. This bill would make federal authorities respect states' current laws on medicinal cannabis and end DEA raids on facilities distributing medical marijuana legally under state law.

Representative Paul, whose presidential campaign prominently featured the ending of the drug war as a platform plank, was joined by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Sam Farr (D-CA) in co-sponsoring this bill.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7582

brandon
02-15-2011, 12:59 PM
I have had a few (Pot Smoking) employers. Professionals in different trades, that most folk would have a hard time keeping up with.
Your statement does not apply to my real world experience.

And that's the beauty of freedom. You can hire pot heads and I can refuse to, and we can see if it makes any difference.

pcosmar
02-15-2011, 01:11 PM
And that's the beauty of freedom. You can hire pot heads and I can refuse to, and we can see if it makes any difference.

It will if you ever have any body work done. /wink

AlexMerced
02-15-2011, 01:15 PM
No just a general rant from a leftist-leaning libertarian.

When ever I bash banks, I get people defending the big bailed-out banks.

When I tell people to screw debt collectors I am lectured about the sanctity of contracts.

I just gave a 3 hour lecture bankruptcy to new legal aid lawyers, so I am fired up

Just letting of steam.

Yeah, I'm on the same boat as far as being a leftist libertarian (more of a leftist Anarcho-Capitalist)

- My position on abortion pisses off pro-choicers and pro-lifers (watch my new video)

- I'm super pro gay rights

- I think all drugs should be legal

- I think Prostitution and gambling should be legal

- I think Child Labor should be legal, that it should be the parents responsibility to protect the kid

- I think consumer activism can be a good thing as long as the government doesn't pick sides in the conflict (same goes for unions)

- I'm for privatizing foster care (I don't think that positions right or left...)

All parties when left unchecked will abuse power, that's the point of the free market to free individuals to be checks in the system. There is nothing un-free market about consumer banding together voluntarily to try to get others to voluntarily not patronize business or charities they see as being socially dangerous.

The Keyword is Voluntary

This post has probably rendered me unelectable... i plan on running anyways

bobbyw24
02-15-2011, 01:29 PM
Yeah, I'm on the same boat as far as being a leftist libertarian (more of a leftist Anarcho-Capitalist)


This post has probably rendered me unelectable... i plan on running anyways

You got my vote

speciallyblend
02-15-2011, 01:48 PM
if your working at wal-mart you should fire yourself!! I know it is hard to quit a job in this market, but wal-mart makes sure you get no benefits and they try to screw you at every possible moment! People if wal-mart is firing you ? You should take it as a blessing!!! Why in gods name would anyone put wal-mart on your application or resume anyway! better off listing taco bell!! remind folks in states where medical marijuana is legal. They pay you better then wal-mart to trim buds!! 12-20 hr depending on how good you are!!

Stary Hickory
02-15-2011, 01:49 PM
If you smoke dope and your employer says that he won't employ people who do...you can be fired. Your freedom to smoke dope does no supersede the property rights of a business owner.

speciallyblend
02-15-2011, 01:50 PM
Yeah, I'm on the same boat as far as being a leftist libertarian (more of a leftist Anarcho-Capitalist)

- My position on abortion pisses off pro-choicers and pro-lifers (watch my new video)

- I'm super pro gay rights

- I think all drugs should be legal

- I think Prostitution and gambling should be legal

- I think Child Labor should be legal, that it should be the parents responsibility to protect the kid

- I think consumer activism can be a good thing as long as the government doesn't pick sides in the conflict (same goes for unions)

- I'm for privatizing foster care (I don't think that positions right or left...)

All parties when left unchecked will abuse power, that's the point of the free market to free individuals to be checks in the system. There is nothing un-free market about consumer banding together voluntarily to try to get others to voluntarily not patronize business or charities they see as being socially dangerous.

The Keyword is Voluntary

This post has probably rendered me unelectable... i plan on running anyways

you are going to be the new liberty loving politician! Someone i would consider voting for over aNY GOP ESTABLISHMENT OR DEM!!

BamaAla
02-15-2011, 01:52 PM
I don't care what my employees do in their off time, but the minute it affects their job performance, they can expect action. Of course, I don't insure either, so maybe that's the difference. Demand benefits, and your employer may start butting into your personal life.

Yep. I don't have a problem in the world with someone smoking pot or what have you, but I cannot allow my employees to. If they were to get hurt, or God forbid hurt someone else while on the job, even if not directly as a result of their drug use, I would lose everything.

speciallyblend
02-15-2011, 01:52 PM
If you smoke dope and your employer says that he won't employ people who do...you can be fired. Your freedom to smoke dope does no supersede the property rights of a business owner.

then i should fire you for drinking beer at home!! The bottom line is this is BS if they are legal and performing their job. It is a shame when employers are basically ignoring science fact and state law! we should fire every wal-mart employee thaT PURCHASES ANYTHING IN THE PHARM SECTION LEGALLY!! SOUNDS RIGHT!!

dannno
02-15-2011, 01:55 PM
I wouldn't want pot heads working for me either.(no hate) (I used to be one) (I was the laziest dude in town)

I hate to break it to you, but cannabis use didn't make you lazy, you made yourself lazy when you became comfortable. Then instead of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and fixing the problem, you blamed it on cannabis.

I know plenty of people who use cannabis who are very intelligent and hardworking, you shouldn't make these kind of assumptions of other people based on your own faults.

dannno
02-15-2011, 01:58 PM
Yep. I don't have a problem in the world with someone smoking pot or what have you, but I cannot allow my employees to. If they were to get hurt, or God forbid hurt someone else while on the job, even if not directly as a result of their drug use, I would lose everything.

So instead you will let your employees hurt themselves when they are hungover, and not lose everything? Or do you lose everything then, too?

I'm sorry, but being hungover is a million times worse than being stoned as far as performing tasks goes.

speciallyblend
02-15-2011, 01:59 PM
Yep. I don't have a problem in the world with someone smoking pot or what have you, but I cannot allow my employees to. If they were to get hurt, or God forbid hurt someone else while on the job, even if not directly as a result of their drug use, I would lose everything.

NOT TRUE, companies in colorado test once before hire and if you get into any accident on the job. then they will test you and if you test positive. Then i am pretty sure liability goes on the person not compANY(unless it was company equipment that failed) HERE IN COLORADO!

iF YOU HIRE ANYONE THAT DRINKS, THEY are and can be intoxicated for up to 24 hrs depending on what they drink!! if we go by this process, then 60% of americans could be out of work overight!!

of course your business might be run by federal gov regulations!!

Bruno
02-15-2011, 02:01 PM
I hate to break it to you, but cannabis use didn't make you lazy, you made yourself lazy when you became comfortable. Then instead of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and fixing the problem, you blamed it on cannabis.

I know plenty of people who use cannabis who are very intelligent and hardworking, you shouldn't make these kind of assumptions of other people based on your own faults.

I have worked circles around both sober and hungoer people while high on cannabis at numerous jobs over the years.

speciallyblend
02-15-2011, 02:04 PM
I have worked circles around both sober and hungoer people while high on cannabis at numerous jobs over the years.

and i am sure we both still do;)

BamaAla
02-15-2011, 02:06 PM
So instead you will let your employees hurt themselves when they are hungover, and not lose everything? Or do you lose everything then, too?

I'm sorry, but being hungover is a million times worse than being stoned as far as performing tasks goes.


NOT TRUE, companies in colorado test once before hire and if you get into any accident on the job. then they will test you and if you test positive. Then i am pretty sure liability goes on the person not compANY(unless it was company equipment that failed) HERE IN COLORADO!

iF YOU HIRE ANYONE THAT DRINKS, THEY are and can be intoxicated for up to 24 hrs depending on what they drink!! if we go by this process, then 60% of americans could be out of work overight!!

I'm sorry fellas, but I'm going to protect my own interests. If someone under the influence is involved in a accident in one of my vehicles or pieces of equipment, or is deemed to be an addict through litigation afterward, I lose everything my family and I have worked to build, all of my other employees are out of a job, and no one wins. Our blanket coverages are going to look for any reason in the world not to cover an accident and this one would be a veritable homerun for them. I simply can't allow it and anyone I hire knows very well that I can not and will not tolerate it. If they don't want to comply with my terms they are more than welcome to seek employment elsewhere.

Stary Hickory
02-15-2011, 02:06 PM
then i should fire you for drinking beer at home!! The bottom line is this is BS if they are legal and performing their job. It is a shame when employers are basically ignoring science fact and state law! we should fire every wal-mart employee thaT PURCHASES ANYTHING IN THE PHARM SECTION LEGALLY!! SOUNDS RIGHT!!

Ok man if you own your own business and you want to fire people for drinking beer, go ahead. If potheads are excellent employees and Walmart is turning them away they will suffer because competition will get these employees. You may not agree with Walmart, but they have every right to fire them if they want...for whatever reason they want. They could randomly fire people with the first letters of their name as D...and that would be crazy, but fine...if that is how they want to do it.

We don't force people to marry people they dont want to, we don't force them to be friends with people they dont want to, we dont force people to let people in their homes that they dont want to (other than cops).....so it's no difference with a store or business you own. You may run it as you see fit, if you are a bigot or racist and want to hire people based on this then fine...its a matter of preference. And likewise people don't have to use your products or services for whatever reason they want.

dannno
02-15-2011, 02:11 PM
I have worked circles around both sober and hungoer people while high on cannabis at numerous jobs over the years.

Ya, I mean, I feel for the people who say you should be able to hire and fire people for whatever reason, and I agree... it's all about freedom.. but firing people for using cannabis is retarded, especially when IT IS ILLEGAL to fire somebody for drinking in their own home in moderation the night before.. If you need to fire someone who smokes cannabis, just fucking fire them for some job-performance related thing.. If there are no job-performance related things to fire them on, then why fire them?

dannno
02-15-2011, 02:13 PM
Ok man if you own your own business and you want to fire people for drinking beer, go ahead. If potheads are excellent employees and Walmart is turning them away they will suffer because competition will get these employees. You may not agree with Walmart, but they have every right to fire them if they want...for whatever reason they want. They could randomly fire people with the first letters of their name as D...and that would be crazy, but fine...if that is how they want to do it.

We don't force people to marry people they dont want to, we don't force them to be friends with people they dont want to, we dont force people to let people in their homes that they dont want to (other than cops).....so it's no difference with a store or business you own. You may run it as you see fit, if you are a bigot or racist and want to hire people based on this then fine...its a matter of preference. And likewise people don't have to use your products or services for whatever reason they want.

Walmart is firing people because of the terms on their employment insurance, it has nothing to do with cannabis use itself.

You are trying to convince us of something we are already convinced of.. employer rights...

What WE are doing is educating YOU about how retarded it is, how unfair it is to people who do use cannabis since it is unfairly targeted by ALL corporations, it is absolutely discriminatory, for no good reason, and there is no reason not to hire people who use cannabis. If everybody knew that, then this wouldn't be a problem and employers would be able to hire and fire whoever they wanted.

silentshout
02-15-2011, 02:19 PM
So, through the political process, we gain some freedom.

Corporations, which are creatures of the state, turn right around and take that freedom away.

And if you don't like it, "Well, you could just go work somewhere else".

That does not fly in the corporate Borg/SKYNET world we live in, get run off from one company for this, and you'll never work anywhere else again, since they have full access to all your medical records.

Nope, corporate tyranny is as bad as government tyranny and both need to be put in check on a regular basis.

Human beings are not cattle to be managed and herded by either government or the almighty transnational corporation.

Absolutely. +1000

silentshout
02-15-2011, 02:20 PM
I wouldn't want pot heads working for me either.(no hate) (I used to be one) (I was the laziest dude in town)

A guy using medical cannabis to treat a condition is not a "pothead," whatever that means.

brandon
02-15-2011, 02:20 PM
I hate to break it to you, but cannabis use didn't make you lazy, you made yourself lazy when you became comfortable. Then instead of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and fixing the problem, you blamed it on cannabis.

I know plenty of people who use cannabis who are very intelligent and hardworking, you shouldn't make these kind of assumptions of other people based on your own faults.

It's not only my own, it is based on everyone I have known. :p

dannno
02-15-2011, 02:22 PM
I'm sorry fellas, but I'm going to protect my own interests. If someone under the influence is involved in a accident in one of my vehicles or pieces of equipment, or is deemed to be an addict through litigation afterward, I lose everything my family and I have worked to build, all of my other employees are out of a job, and no one wins. Our blanket coverages are going to look for any reason in the world not to cover an accident and this one would be a veritable homerun for them. I simply can't allow it and anyone I hire knows very well that I can not and will not tolerate it. If they don't want to comply with my terms they are more than welcome to seek employment elsewhere.

I think the poster was disagreeing that you would lose everything, not that you shouldn't be able to make your own decisions.. and you should be able to make your own decisions, we are simply pointing out that it is possible to lose high quality employees by having arbitrary standards that have nothing to do with performance, such as cannabis usage.

If you can show that you've tested the employee and they tested clean, how is the insurance company going to prove that you knew they smoked herb?

I think the real questions we are asking, what we really want to know is.. in a free society, where you would not be held responsible for such actions, would you hire people who smoked cannabis?

I mean, there are plenty of studies showing that people who use cannabis (and not alcohol together) are safer drivers and have less fatal accidents than those who drive sober.. and I'm talking "plenty" as in the majority of studies that have been done worldwide that have attempted to prove cannabis causes more accidents have ultimately proven the opposite.. so no insurance company in their right mind is going to say that you can't hire people simply because they smoke cannabis.

dannno
02-15-2011, 02:24 PM
It's not only my own, it is based on everyone I have known. :p

Well I have had precisely the opposite experience. All my friends have degrees or advanced degrees, or are very self motivated and successful. Maybe you were hanging out with a bunch of losers. Were you doing any other drugs?

Anti Federalist
02-15-2011, 02:27 PM
If they don't want to comply with my terms they are more than welcome to seek employment elsewhere.

And there you have it, and that is every employer, large or small.

So, you have freedom in name only, because there are any number of other, similar rights that could be restricted or nullified based on the fact that it may pose an insurance risk.

Everything from skiing to owning guns could conceivably be banned.

Which is why, at the end of the day, there either has to be a restriction on the insurers or the employers.

Stary Hickory
02-15-2011, 02:29 PM
Walmart is firing people because of the terms on their employment insurance, it has nothing to do with cannabis use itself.

You are trying to convince us of something we are already convinced of.. employer rights...

What WE are doing is educating YOU about how retarded it is, how unfair it is to people who do use cannabis since it is unfairly targeted by ALL corporations, it is absolutely discriminatory, for no good reason, and there is no reason not to hire people who use cannabis. If everybody knew that, then this wouldn't be a problem and employers would be able to hire and fire whoever they wanted.


Dude first of all you are not educating me on anything. I see people here who like to smoke pot mad because Walmart is firing people because they smoke pot. Move along nothing to see here. If you don't like it boyott Walmart, it would be one of many reasons I already avoid that place. Their support of Obamacare as a way to get HC for their underpaid employees was enough of a reason for me. You don't think it is fair? Boo hoo cry me a river. Fair is totally subjective and means absolutely nothing.

Personally if someone was a heavy pot smoker it would definitely be on my list of negatives for a prospective employee...but so would drunkenness, bad hygiene, or criminal record. It's possible I would hire someone who smoked pot, depends on the person. What do I base this on? My experience with potheads in general...it's subjective, bu who cares? If you have limited resources and limited time why hire people who you consider to be risky...easier to play it safe.

If my subjective reasons for not hiring potheads turns out to be faulty I will soon be hurting my own business and, either I alter my opinions of potheads workers and hire them or I lose profits and go out of business.

I support people's rights to smoke, eat, chew, ingest, or do whatever they like, and I support people's rights to choose whether to associate with those people based on those same reasons.

brandon
02-15-2011, 02:31 PM
Well I have had precisely the opposite experience. All my friends have degrees or advanced degrees, or are very self motivated and successful. Maybe you were hanging out with a bunch of losers. Were you doing any other drugs?

Not really. Mostly just smoking pot and drinking beer. Almost no one I have met in engineering school or in my professional career is a current pot smoker. Most my friends from back in the day that still smoke pot aren't really doing much with their life and living paycheck to paycheck, while the ones who quit now seem to be doing much better. I'm sure other people have had different experiences...but this has been mine.

dannno
02-15-2011, 02:31 PM
And there you have it, and that is every employer, large or small.

So, you have freedom in name only, because there are any number of other, similar rights that could be restricted or nullified based on the fact that it may pose an insurance risk.

Everything from skiing to owning guns could conceivably be banned.

Which is why, at the end of the day, there either has to be a restriction on the insurers or the employers.

Yep, that's a good point.

If you start a business without workers comp and employment insurance schemes, then you go to jail.. so all companies must have these things.. that is NOT freedom.

Then to have these insurance companies who are in bed with government telling EVERY company in the country who they can and cannot hire.. wow, ya, that's freedom right there, baby!

dannno
02-15-2011, 02:34 PM
Not really. Mostly just smoking pot and drinking beer. Almost no one I have met in engineering school or in my professional career is a current pot smoker. Most my friends from back in the day that still smoke pot aren't really doing much with their life and living paycheck to paycheck, while the ones who quit now seem to be doing much better. I'm sure other people have had different experiences...but this has been mine.

Well one of my friends in college who I smoked with every day always had these stomach problems growing up. When he graduated, he stopped smoking, except maybe a couple times a year. He was living paycheck to paycheck. Then he got sick, went to the hospital and almost died. His doctor recommended he start toking again, and ever since he has been doing much better. He's now a manager and has a beach front condo... or he could be sober and dead.

Your examples suck ass.

EndDaFed
02-15-2011, 02:39 PM
Well I have had precisely the opposite experience. All my friends have degrees or advanced degrees, or are very self motivated and successful. Maybe you were hanging out with a bunch of losers. Were you doing any other drugs?

People like to blame drugs for things that can be better explained by genetics. Which is why I think we should support eugenic organizations that give out free abortions.

dannno
02-15-2011, 02:40 PM
Dude first of all you are not educating me on anything. I see people here who like to smoke pot mad because Walmart is firing people because they smoke pot. Move along nothing to see here. If you don't like it boyott Walmart, it would be one of many reasons I already avoid that place. Their support of Obamacare as a way to get HC for their underpaid employees was enough of a reason for me. You don't think it is fair? Boo hoo cry me a river. Fair is totally subjective and means absolutely nothing.

Personally if someone was a heavy pot smoker it would definitely be on my list of negatives for a prospective employee...but so would drunkenness, bad hygiene, or criminal record. It's possible I would hire someone who smoked pot, depends on the person. What do I base this on? My experience with potheads in general...it's subjective, bu who cares? If you have limited resources and limited time why hire people who you consider to be risky...easier to play it safe.

If my subjective reasons for not hiring potheads turns out to be faulty I will soon be hurting my own business and, either I alter my opinions of potheads workers and hire them or I lose profits and go out of business.

I support people's rights to smoke, eat, chew, ingest, or do whatever they like, and I support people's rights to choose whether to associate with those people based on those same reasons.

You seem to be missing the point that AF made in his post.. because the government is so involved in business, that in and of itself is the main thing which discourages businesses from hiring people who toke herb. Walmart didn't make this policy because they don't like cannabis users, once again, IT IS SOMETHING INGRAINED IN THE SYSTEM. It is anti-freedom, it hurts businesses and most of all people who choose to consume cannabis.

The fact is, a lot of people are taken back when they find out I use cannabis. If you were my employer, I'd probably be one of your top employees and you would have no idea I used cannabis. So your judgments on cannabis users are based on the obvious users. If you do have a business with multiple employees, or just a regular place of employment, you've probably worked with plenty of cannabis users without knowing. You've probably known tons of cannabis users who you admire and respect, but you will never know that they used cannabis because it is illegal and it is something you NEVER want your employer to find out.

RonPaulCult
02-15-2011, 02:42 PM
Some of you are unwilling to defend the freedom of people you don't like. If you love freedom, you must defend the freedom of those you despise the MOST. Only then are you truly defending freedom.

I am generally anti-corporate, and I haven't shopped at Wal-Mart for over a decade now. But ignore who the employer is for the moment. Ignore the reason for the firing for a moment too. Forget about how you feel about pot for a moment (I personally think it should be legal).

Do you believe in freedom or not? That's the only question to ask yourself.

Does an employer have the FREEDOM to hire and fire the person of their choice, at any time, for any reason? In a FREE society - the answer is YES. Period.

The employee/employer relationship is an agreement between TWO sides to do business together. It takes two to tangle. The employee has no right to force the employer to do BUSINESS any more than you can be forced to work for an employer. Both must FREELY decide to do business together.

The government should keep its hands off of business at all times. They can't force you to work for a company. They can't force a company to hire/not fire you. They can't force us to buy healthcare.

If you don't like why a company is firing you - protest it - organize a boycott - start you own business to compete with the people who fired you. Don't call upon the force of (big) government to make things more favorable for you.

BamaAla
02-15-2011, 02:47 PM
I think the poster was disagreeing that you would lose everything, not that you shouldn't be able to make your own decisions.. and you should be able to make your own decisions, we are simply pointing out that it is possible to lose high quality employees by having arbitrary standards that have nothing to do with performance, such as cannabis usage.

I agree 100%; unfortunately, I don't live or run my business in Colorado. I live and work in Alabama and I have to abide by Alabama law and should anything ever reach the point of litigation I would have to deal with Alabama juries.


If you can show that you've tested the employee and they tested clean, how is the insurance company going to prove that you knew they smoked herb?

My hope is that testing is enough to protect me from liability, but I fear that may not even be enough. Employer negligence is catch all for cases like this.


I think the real questions we are asking, what we really want to know is.. in a free society, where you would not be held responsible for such actions, would you hire people who smoked cannabis?

If that society were to exist, I wouldn't care what they did at home; however, I still wouldn't want anyone under the influence of anything operating my equipment or vehicles.


I mean, there are plenty of studies showing that people who use cannabis (and not alcohol together) are safer drivers and have less fatal accidents than those who drive sober.. and I'm talking "plenty" as in the majority of studies that have been done worldwide that have attempted to prove cannabis causes more accidents have ultimately proven the opposite.. so no insurance company in their right mind is going to say that you can't hire people simply because they smoke cannabis.

If the insurance company is a go, I'm a go. Marijuana isn't the drug I have to worry about though.

dannno
02-15-2011, 02:47 PM
Some of you are unwilling to defend the freedom of people you don't like. If you love freedom, you must defend the freedom of those you despise the MOST. Only then are you truly defending freedom.

I am generally anti-corporate, and I haven't shopped at Wal-Mart for over a decade now. But ignore who the employer is for the moment. Ignore the reason for the firing for a moment too. Forget about how you feel about pot for a moment (I personally think it should be legal).

Do you believe in freedom or not? That's the only question to ask yourself.

Does an employer have the FREEDOM to hire and fire the person of their choice, at any time, for any reason? In a FREE society - the answer is YES. Period.

The employee/employer relationship is an agreement between TWO sides to do business together. It takes two to tangle. The employee has no right to force the employer to do BUSINESS any more than you can be forced to work for an employer. Both must FREELY decide to do business together.

The government should keep its hands off of business at all times. They can't force you to work for a company. They can't force a company to hire/not fire you. They can't force us to buy healthcare.

If you don't like why a company is firing you - protest it - organize a boycott - start you own business to compete with the people who fired you. Don't call upon the force of (big) government to make things more favorable for you.


Yes, you see, the point we are making is that there are already laws and regulations that make it so Walmart has NO CHOICE but to NOT hire cannabis users.

The POINT is Walmart is not firing people for using cannabis, they are firing people because of the terms of their insurance, insurance that is regulated and in bed with government.

Don't you think Walmart would RATHER have the option of KEEPING the medicinal marijuana patient and firing them for performance issues instead of BEING FORCED to fire them simply for using their medicine?

Stary Hickory
02-15-2011, 02:49 PM
Yes, you see, the point we are making is that there are already laws and regulations that make it so Walmart has NO CHOICE but to NOT hire cannabis users.

The POINT is Walmart is not firing people for using cannabis, they are firing people because of the terms of their insurance, insurance that is regulated and in bed with government.

Don't you think Walmart would RATHER have the option of KEEPING the medicinal marijuana patient and firing them for performance issues instead of BEING FORCED to fire them simply for using their medicine?

I am not seeing how the government is forcing Walmarts hand here...the OP have anything there that said the government was forcing Walmart to fire these employees.

dannno
02-15-2011, 02:51 PM
If that society were to exist, I wouldn't care what they did at home; however, I still wouldn't want anyone under the influence of anything operating my equipment or vehicles.


What if you had an employee that worked with you and on your equipment for 20 years, no accidents, best employee you ever had, and one day after 20 years of service informed you that they have been getting high every day before work (this is under the new society where it is your decision to retain and not the state)?



If the insurance company is a go, I'm a go. Marijuana isn't the drug I have to worry about though.

Ya if I owned a fleet of vehicles that other people drove, I would be inclined to install mechanisms that detected alcohol use, although I'd probably set it with some tolerances in case people had some alcohol in their system the night before, or wanted to have a beer on their lunch break, etc..

RonPaulCult
02-15-2011, 02:53 PM
Yes, you see, the point we are making is that there are already laws and regulations that make it so Walmart has NO CHOICE but to NOT hire cannabis users.

The POINT is Walmart is not firing people for using cannabis, they are firing people because of the terms of their insurance, insurance that is regulated and in bed with government.

Don't you think Walmart would RATHER have the option of KEEPING the medicinal marijuana patient and firing them for performance issues instead of BEING FORCED to fire them simply for using their medicine?

Sounds like the fired employees need to gather together, lawyer up and take on the insurance companies and government.

Anti Federalist
02-15-2011, 02:55 PM
Before government stuck it's nose into things, that was precisely what a union and collective bargaining was supposed to do.

Write up a contract that stipulated you could NOT arbitrarily fire people for x, y or z.

We know how that worked out.


Some of you are unwilling to defend the freedom of people you don't like. If you love freedom, you must defend the freedom of those you despise the MOST. Only then are you truly defending freedom.

I am generally anti-corporate, and I haven't shopped at Wal-Mart for over a decade now. But ignore who the employer is for the moment. Ignore the reason for the firing for a moment too. Forget about how you feel about pot for a moment (I personally think it should be legal).

Do you believe in freedom or not? That's the only question to ask yourself.

Does an employer have the FREEDOM to hire and fire the person of their choice, at any time, for any reason? In a FREE society - the answer is YES. Period.

The employee/employer relationship is an agreement between TWO sides to do business together. It takes two to tangle. The employee has no right to force the employer to do BUSINESS any more than you can be forced to work for an employer. Both must FREELY decide to do business together.

The government should keep its hands off of business at all times. They can't force you to work for a company. They can't force a company to hire/not fire you. They can't force us to buy healthcare.

If you don't like why a company is firing you - protest it - organize a boycott - start you own business to compete with the people who fired you. Don't call upon the force of (big) government to make things more favorable for you.

dannno
02-15-2011, 02:57 PM
I am not seeing how the government is forcing Walmarts hand here...

Then you really haven't been paying attention to the thread at all..



the OP have anything there that said the government was forcing Walmart to fire these employees.

Anybody with any experience in corporate america knows how the insurance side works.. corporations DO NOT have a choice but to test. Insurance companies DO NOT have a choice but to make all illicit substances part of their testing.

There is NO CHOICE. Period. There is NO FREEDOM.

I would argue that Walmart would have MORE FREEDOM to retain good employees if they were not allowed to let go employees for simply using cannabis. Let them fire employees for performance related issues. If they are too high at work to perform their job, that's a performance related issue. Fire them for whatever you want, I don't care, but give Walmart the freedom to retain the employees.. right now they don't have that freedom.

Just like Bama said he would hire people who used cannabis at home (but not at work) if he were FREE to do so, but he doesn't because of the law.

RonPaulCult
02-15-2011, 02:57 PM
Before government stuck it's nose into things, that was precisely what a union and collective bargaining was supposed to do.

Write up a contract that stipulated you could NOT arbitrarily fire people for x, y or z.

We know how that worked out.

Unions can be great free market solutions to problems. Government screwed over unions by making union priorities federal law. They also screwed over unions by creating an unholy marriage between unions and government (similar to the unholy marriage of corporations and government). The solution for all of this is much less government.

BamaAla
02-15-2011, 03:11 PM
What if you had an employee that worked with you and on your equipment for 20 years, no accidents, best employee you ever had, and one day after 20 years of service informed you that they have been getting high every day before work (this is under the new society where it is your decision to retain and not the state)?

We're going down a looong road of hypothetical questions, but I suppose I would be proven wrong. If it weren't for insurance concerns marijuana usage among my employees would worry me about as much as the next ice age.




Ya if I owned a fleet of vehicles that other people drove, I would be inclined to install mechanisms that detected alcohol use, although I'd probably set it with some tolerances in case people had some alcohol in their system the night before, or wanted to have a beer on their lunch break, etc..

Alcohol and meth are what scare me to death.

EndDaFed
02-15-2011, 03:16 PM
Alcohol and meth are what scare me to death.

Maybe you should screen for people with hidden narcolepsy. That could cause some serious accidents. Maybe do some secret full DNA genome testing.

BamaAla
02-15-2011, 03:28 PM
Maybe you should screen for people with hidden narcolepsy. That could cause some serious accidents. Maybe do some secret full DNA genome testing.

Perhaps. How do you protect yourself and employees in your business?

EndDaFed
02-15-2011, 03:30 PM
Perhaps. How do you protect yourself and employees in your business?

It's just an idea. In the future this type of testing will be so cheap it would be crazy not to do because it will tell your all the diseases an employee has the possibility of getting. Right now it costs about a thousand dollars it won't be long thanks to exponential growth in IT that the 1 dollar barrier will be reached.

Anti Federalist
02-15-2011, 03:36 PM
Perhaps. How do you protect yourself and employees in your business?

I may be wrong but IIRC you're in the trucking business?

If so, no worries, DOT is already starting to test for narcolepsy caused by sleep apnea.

'Course, that's going top start culling out a lot of good drivers as the standards get more stringent.

Hopefully you're in a business that can pass those costs along to your customers.

pcosmar
02-15-2011, 03:44 PM
Yep. I don't have a problem in the world with someone smoking pot or what have you, but I cannot allow my employees to. If they were to get hurt, or God forbid hurt someone else while on the job, even if not directly as a result of their drug use, I would lose everything.

Jeez, What if they hurt themselves or others while clean and sober?

Statistically most accidents are caused by people that have been drug tested. :eek:

In my experience (over 20 years in Bodyshops) it is those that do not take the occasional "safety Break" that are most dangerous.

And in my years in several shops, the highest quality work (custom/ Show quality) was done by people that use.
in fact, outside of corporate shops and dealerships (shitty quality) I have not known any shops to drug test.

This was something pushed by insurance Companies. And it is bullshit.

pcosmar
02-15-2011, 03:51 PM
Alcohol and meth are what scare me to death.

You know, I remember over 30 years ago (before the Bullshit "Meth") I sold a lot of whites to truckers. And some good quality Pharmaceutical Crystal as well.
Just don't see that anymore. but bathtub crank is everywhere.
:(

pcosmar
02-15-2011, 03:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNqv85coyTw



Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all.
Malcolm Reynolds:

BamaAla
02-15-2011, 04:16 PM
I may be wrong but IIRC you're in the trucking business?

If so, no worries, DOT is already starting to test for narcolepsy caused by sleep apnea.

'Course, that's going top start culling out a lot of good drivers as the standards get more stringent.

Hopefully you're in a business that can pass those costs along to your customers.

I have contracts with poultry companies to "catch" the birds and load them for live haul. We don't truck per se, but we did have the trucks and loaders for a long time. My father started the business in 1954 and supplied the trucks from that time until his death in 1998 and my mother ran the business with the trucks from that point until 2002. During those 48 years we had 1 accident (late 80's) with one of our trucks, yet insurance costs rose so much over the years that it became unprofitable to supply the trucks and had to let someone else take over those particular contracts.




Jeez, What if they hurt themselves or others while clean and sober?

Statistically most accidents are caused by people that have been drug tested. :eek:

In my experience (over 20 years in Bodyshops) it is those that do not take the occasional "safety Break" that are most dangerous.

And in my years in several shops, the highest quality work (custom/ Show quality) was done by people that use.
in fact, outside of corporate shops and dealerships (shitty quality) I have not known any shops to drug test.

This was something pushed by insurance Companies. And it is bullshit.

I would never dream of telling you how to run your business, but I simply can't allow users to work for me. We drive tens of thousands of miles a year, work with dangerous machinery, and are doing our work on someone else's property every night. I understand that some of yall's experiences may dictate something else for you and yours, but I refuse to open myself up to unwarranted liability for any reason.

pcosmar
02-15-2011, 04:22 PM
I would never dream of telling you how to run your business,

I don't run a Business. I and I wouldn't because of insurance and government interference.

I have been hired by quite successful businessmen who put some green (non-fiat) in my pay package though. ;)

dannno
02-15-2011, 04:48 PM
We drive tens of thousands of miles a year, work with dangerous machinery, and are doing our work on someone else's property every night. I understand that some of yall's experiences may dictate something else for you and yours, but I refuse to open myself up to unwarranted liability for any reason.

If you're really looking to increase safety as much as possible, you might consider refusing to open yourself up to unwarranted liability from sober people.



A 1983 study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that the only significant affect of cannabis use was slower driving - arguably a positive effect of driving high.

A comprehensive 1992 NHTSA study revealed that pot is rarely involved in driving accidents, except when combined with alcohol. The study concluded that "the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers." This study was buried for six years and not released until 1998.

A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia examined blood samples from drivers involved in 2,500 accidents. It found that drivers with only cannabis in their systems were slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without.

In Canada, a 1999 University of Toronto meta-analysis of studies into pot and driving showed that drivers who consumed a moderate amount of pot typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed. The analysis also confirmed that marijuana taken alone does not increase a driver's risk of causing an accident.

A major study done by the UK Transport Research Laboratory in 2000 found that drivers under the influence of cannabis were more cautious and less likely to drive dangerously. The study examined the effects of marijuana use on drivers through four weeks of tests on driving simulators. The study was commissioned specifically to show that marijuana was impairing, and the british government was embarrassed with the study's conclusion that "marijuana users drive more safely under the influence of cannabis."

According to the Cannabis and Driving report, a comprehensive literature review published in 2000 by the UK Department of Transportation, "the majority of evidence suggests that cannabis use may result in a lower risk of [accident] culpability."

The most recent study into drugs and driving was published in the July 2004 Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention. Researchers at the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research analyzed blood tests from those in traffic accidents, and found that even people with blood alcohol between 0.5% and 0.8% (below the legal limit) had a five-fold increase in the risk of serious accident. Drivers above the legal alcohol limit were 15 times more likely to have a collision. Drugs like Valium and Rohypnol produced results similar to alcohol, while cocaine and opiates showed only a small but "not statistically significant" increase in accident risk. As for the marijuana-only users? They showed absolutely no increased risk of accidents at all.


Links to studies:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4131.html

dannno
02-15-2011, 05:24 PM
bump

Fox McCloud
02-15-2011, 05:52 PM
Corporations aren't creatures of the state. They're creatures of their shareholders, who, as individuals, choose to enter into an agreement with one another where certain property is shared between them and decisions about the management of that property are delegated to a board whom they elect. People who don't want to participate in such an agreement don't have to. The right that corporations have to hire and fire whomever they want is nothing but an incident of the right their shareholders as individuals have to do that.

agreed---furthermore, if the corporate charter specifies they can only be sued so much if you use their product(s) or service(s) and are hurt/damaged/whatever by it, then you have to agree to that since you bought that product.

The only exception to liability is when they damage someone else's property who did not buy their products/services; then damage liability should be unlimited (under current law, it's not).

As much as I love the idea of drug legalization, I wonder how many "libertarians" will still balk when private individuals, families, and companies choose to voluntarily act in a manner that prohibits certain behaviors.

pcosmar
02-15-2011, 06:02 PM
As much as I love the idea of drug legalization, I wonder how many "libertarians" will still bulk when private individuals, families, and companies choose to voluntarily act in a manner that prohibits certain behaviors.

I think more about how many good people will be available for employment, and how much business growth there will be once these hindrances are removed.

MelissaWV
02-15-2011, 06:30 PM
...
As much as I love the idea of drug legalization, I wonder how many "libertarians" will still balk when private individuals, families, and companies choose to voluntarily act in a manner that prohibits certain behaviors.

I'm a practical lady. I think WalMart should be able to fire Medical Marijuana users (in theory; the tax dollar situation makes things murky as hell) who are unable to fulfill their job duties. Now, being that WalMart also provides benefits for some of its employees, it should have to foot the bill if the appropriate disability policy is triggered. However, if someone is really really really sick, they might be slow or ineffective at their job to start with. Adding pot to the mix is unlikely to make them employee of the month.

The great part about legalization is it requires people to find better justification for their actions. Fire me? Okay, justify it. Pull me over and write me a ticket? Okay, justify it. Hiding behind "legal limits" and "it's the law" rationalization does no one any good.

pcosmar
02-15-2011, 07:09 PM
I'm a practical lady. I think WalMart should be able to fire Medical Marijuana users (in theory; the tax dollar situation makes things murky as hell) who are unable to fulfill their job duties. Now, being that WalMart also provides benefits for some of its employees, it should have to foot the bill if the appropriate disability policy is triggered. However, if someone is really really really sick, they might be slow or ineffective at their job to start with. Adding pot to the mix is unlikely to make them employee of the month.

The great part about legalization is it requires people to find better justification for their actions. Fire me? Okay, justify it. Pull me over and write me a ticket? Okay, justify it. Hiding behind "legal limits" and "it's the law" rationalization does no one any good.

OK, There were several pieces written at the time, an being in Michigan and with a wife that works at Walmart perhaps I'm a bit closer to this.
The man was by ALL accounts an exemplary employee, The store (managers and employees) wanted to keep him and fought to do so.
This was a corporate decision.
Had he been on a prescription to Oxycotin and been a walking zombie they would not have fired him, even if under the influence on the clock.

This needs to change. And corporate entities need to be educated.

LibForestPaul
02-15-2011, 08:31 PM
So people who take anti-depressants ,hypertension medicines, or require orthotics can also be fired?

Fox McCloud
02-15-2011, 09:01 PM
So people who take anti-depressants ,hypertension medicines, or require orthotics can also be fired?

if it's company policy/in the contract, sure.

LibertyRevolution
02-16-2011, 03:15 AM
At my previous job, we had pot heads, coke heads, and alcoholics.
Never had a problem with the potheads. Hell our best fork op would be stoned all day, effortlessly making maneuvers I wouldn't even attempt.
Coke heads work more hours so they can buy more coke, so they can work more hours, so they can buy more coke. So they are fine.
The alcoholics were the ones always breaking things and getting injured.
Guys coming in at 5am, just left the bar at 2am..coming smelling like puke, piss, and stale beer.

speciallyblend
02-16-2011, 03:27 AM
So people who take anti-depressants ,hypertension medicines, or require orthotics can also be fired?

by some standards here yes??? most who speak of medical marijuana or personal are just flat out clueless and brainwashed on so many levels!!

so my wife can keep her job on morphine for 3 yrs but die because of it or she can take medical marijuana and live and possibly lose her job. thank god we live in colorado!! f walmart,i will never spend another dime in that store. people working at wal-mart should fire themselves if they can!! after my wife being on morphine for 3 yrs and finally stopping on her own. She is starting to live again with medical marijuana. The us gov and walmart can go jump off the earth for all i care. We try to live our lives like the banks,insurance and the us gov do not exist anymore!! f them all

squarepusher
02-16-2011, 03:32 AM
You know, I remember over 30 years ago (before the Bullshit "Meth") I sold a lot of whites to truckers. And some good quality Pharmaceutical Crystal as well.
Just don't see that anymore. but bathtub crank is everywhere.
:(

:eek:

bobbyw24
02-16-2011, 06:13 AM
A guy using medical cannabis to treat a condition is not a "pothead," whatever that means.

That^

RedStripe
02-16-2011, 07:01 AM
Privatized authoritarianism isn't libertarian, even if it's Libertarian.