# No piss test before work.



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

If pot is legal there then that is probably why no test or less frequent testing.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

I can see the litigation/lawsuits already for someone who visited Colorada and failed a drug test at work when back in their home state where pot is not legal.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

360max said:


> I can see the litigation/lawsuits already for someone who visited Colorada and failed a drug test at work when back in their home state where pot is not legal.


They arrest many for possession on the highways just driving out of hemp heaven.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

icdubois said:


> Not that I'm complaining I hate taking those things. Just don't like the invasion of privacy and the guilty until proven innocent vibe associated with them. I don't do drugs so I don't need to study to pass them. Just seams kinda weird to be dispatched and started working with out even the mention of a piss test. I wonder if it has to do with Colorado's new policies on marijuana.
> 
> Is this normal? Half the companies I've worked for need one and the other half don't.


Some jobs require it, some dont.
We have a multi-million dollar program here in Florida that requires a urine test for public assistance. I think they caught someone last month and saved our great state about $46.32. We are a proud people.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

Suncoast Power said:


> Some jobs require it, some dont.
> We have a multi-million dollar program here in Florida that requires a urine test for public assistance. I think they caught someone last month and saved our great state about $46.32. We are a proud people.


Such testing goes a LONG way towards the treatment of those addicted to vicious street drugs.

Out here, such souls are usually vectored into half-way houses and de-tox programs.

The stats are GRIM.

At my brother's half-way house, 60% of the fellows were dead within two-years... and no-one shot them. They all destroyed themselves.

One way or another, they were ALL on public assistance.

If YOU'VE got the solution -- don't stay quiet -- tell us all about it. :thumbsup:


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

telsa said:


> Such testing goes a LONG way towards the treatment of those addicted to vicious street drugs.
> 
> Out here, such souls are usually vectored into half-way houses and de-tox programs.
> 
> ...


Legalizing cannabis will go a long way.
Lowering cannabis from its lofty schedule 1 to 2 would in reality make cannabis legal in the US.
We waste countless money trying to punish people for possessing what is essentially safer than the most abused drug in our society. Alcohol.

There is rumor this is to happen very soon. Very soon.
I will believe it when I see it.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Suncoast Power said:


> Some jobs require it, some dont.
> We have a multi-million dollar program here in Florida that requires a urine test for public assistance. I think they caught someone last month and saved our great state about $46.32. We are a proud people.


I read that in Maine many left the state before the testing requirement took effect.


----------



## Essex (Feb 4, 2015)

In my line of work we need to complete a pre-employment drugs and alcohol test and then out of a team of 8 at least 1 must have an unannounced D&A carried out every year.


----------



## Sparky Girl (Apr 15, 2015)

I got into the union in 1974. The first drug test I had to take was in 2006 because I picked up a call where the contractor required it. 

Drug abuse was never really an issue but the insurance companies began requiring testing. Alcoholism was the biggest drug problem in our local but drug testing never tested for that.


----------



## dreamcrusher28 (Oct 19, 2010)

Just apply to jobs that don't test if you don't like it. No one held a gun to your head.


----------



## dreamcrusher28 (Oct 19, 2010)

Sorry, missed that you don't always know if there is a test. Refuse the test when you get there if it bothers you that much. Seems kinda pointless if you're drug free and want the job. Not used to reading OPs like this. Usually the guy is crapping his pants worrying about HOW to pass.


----------



## Brain John (Jul 15, 2016)

Sparky Girl said:


> I got into the union in *1974.* The first drug test I had to take was in 2006 because I picked up a call where the contractor required it.
> 
> Drug abuse was never really an issue but the insurance companies began requiring testing. Alcoholism was the biggest drug problem in our local but drug testing never tested for that.


Sparky Girl more like Sparky Woman with 44 years in the trade:thumbsup:


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Age is no more than a number and a state of mind.


----------



## Signal1 (Feb 10, 2016)

Brain John said:


> Sparky Girl more like Sparky Woman with 44 years in the trade:thumbsup:


She chose the name Sparky Girl.

So it's not Sparky Woman......It's Sparky Girl. .....Period.


----------



## Lone Crapshooter (Nov 8, 2008)

I do have a free and effective solution for the drug problem. DO NOTHING.

The facts are like this. If someone is addicted to a illegal drug they should have not used that drug to start with. Through their voluntary action they became a drug addict. There is enough information out there they should have known not to mess with illegal drugs to start with.

Society should not have to be burdened with the expense of rehab. The tax payers should not have to pay to feed and house drug users in the prisons and jails. It just not make economic seance. No EMS department should ever dispatch a ambulance to a illegal drug overdose. No emergency room should take drug overdoses. Narcan should never be given to drug overdoses. 
The bottom line is that drug users got that way voluntarily they can unget that way voluntarily.
The sit around talk about it and lets blame other people for my actions rehab programs are a waste of time and YOUR TAX DOLLARS and they DO NOT WORK
.
What should be done ? Drug addicts should be told that they are a menus to society and be told to find the nearest bridge and to crawl under it and and die. Cheap and effective solution to the illegal drug addiction.

One other thing this is a solution to illegal drug addiction. Prescription drug addiction is another issue. My heart goes out to those folks. A lot are good people that do have a chronic condition and the go to someone with MD after their name looking for help. What they find is a doctor in education only in reality they are just quacks that play fast and loose with their prescription pad. 
I know I have had some good friends that have been through that . I would not wish that on anybody.

LC


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Lone Crapshooter said:


> I do have a free and effective solution for the drug problem. DO NOTHING.
> 
> The facts are like this. If someone is addicted to a illegal drug they should have not used that drug to start with. Through their voluntary action they became a drug addict. There is enough information out there they should have known not to mess with illegal drugs to start with.
> 
> ...


Sounds a bit harsh but the current system of coddling the abusers isn't helping anyone.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

telsa said:


> Such testing goes a LONG way towards the treatment of those addicted to vicious street drugs.
> 
> Out here, such souls are usually vectored into half-way houses and de-tox programs...
> One way or another, they were ALL on public assistance.
> ...


You could make the argument that if you're on public assistance, you shouldn't be blowing the cash on illegal drugs, or for that matter on alcohol or tobacco. A friend of mine works in a bar in the ghetto, and pretty much every dollar that comes in the door is either proceeds from drug dealing (bottle service yo!) or public assistance. Of course that's intrusive but then again maybe we've come to see living indefinitely on welfare as too normal, maybe it should be a more extreme circumstance. 

But in the case of an addict, it's bad for both the public sponsoring the assistance, and the recipient of the assistance. 

Public assistance, like family assistance, friend assistance, or any other assistance, is of course well intended but certainly "enables" addicts; it lets them scrape by in a miserable existence without ever quite getting desperate enough to make a change. It prevents them from bottoming out and being forced to do something about it. It also puts money in the pockets of the ruthless parasites that sell them drugs. 

Now if drugs were legal and heavily taxed at least the money would be going to - if not the greatest people in the world - at least certainly a higher class of parasite.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

splatz said:


> You could make the argument that if you're on public assistance, you shouldn't be blowing the cash on illegal drugs, or for that matter on alcohol or tobacco. A friend of mine works in a bar in the ghetto, and pretty much every dollar that comes in the door is either proceeds from drug dealing (bottle service yo!) or public assistance. Of course that's intrusive but then again maybe we've come to see living indefinitely on welfare as too normal, maybe it should be a more extreme circumstance.
> 
> But in the case of an addict, it's bad for both the public sponsoring the assistance, and the recipient of the assistance.
> 
> ...


If passing off one criminal activity to taxes how long before people think rape or murder should just be taxed instead of arrest and prosecution?


----------



## icdubois (Nov 16, 2013)

dreamcrusher28 said:


> Sorry, missed that you don't always know if there is a test. Refuse the test when you get there if it bothers you that much. Seems kinda pointless if you're drug free and want the job. Not used to reading OPs like this. Usually the guy is crapping his pants worrying about HOW to pass.


I know no one is holding a gun to my head to get a job, and yes I don't use drugs so I have no problems passing them. It's just I have a shy bladder and rarely can piss on command. When this happens the looks from the people at the facility change. Like I'm trying to scam the system or cheat on the test. I would much rather give a hair or blood test personally. That way I don't feel like I'm being watched with suspicious eyes. 

I was just kinda shocked to not have to take one. And I'm definitely ok with not taking one.


----------



## Lone Crapshooter (Nov 8, 2008)

What I do is study for the test. Hit the soft drink machine drink 2cans or bottles of DIET COKE or PEPSI no problem . Don't drink root beer or anything that's caffene free. They don't work quite as fast.

LC
.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Lone Crapshooter said:


> The facts are like this. If someone is addicted to a illegal drug they should have not used that drug to start with. Through their [/i]*voluntary*[/i] action they became a drug addict. There is enough information out there they should have known not to mess with illegal drugs to start with.


I would have to respectfully disagree completely with this, although I would have at one point agreed completely. The hinge word there is "voluntary." 

So much of the information that's out there about drugs is so simplistic and such a waste of time that it's just about useless - all that just say no / this is your brain on drugs stuff - that's just bull**** pushed by politicians, cops, schools, and everyone else to make themselves feel like they're doing something, and get themselves some money for programs. 

You have to understand that the crux of addiction is that it's INvoluntary. People doing something they know they shouldn't, they know will have bad consequences, yet they just can't stop. 

There's a combination of two things that predispose people to addiction: part genetic, part psychological. 

Depending how predisposed the person is, and the substances they come across, determines whether they become an addict. If a kid has a long line of alcoholics / addicts on both sides of their parentage, and grows up in hell, the first time they get drunk, it's pretty much a done deal. 

A lot of people that never had any problem with alcohol or drugs getting out of hand discover, disastrously, that they have some addictive potential after all, when a back injury, accident, or something leads them to Oxycontin or other opiates. 

Just about every family I know of has lost someone to addiction. It's worth it to learn a little more about the process really works. It's a real shame the drug education they teach in schools doesn't get to the real heart of the matter.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

MechanicalDVR said:


> If passing off one criminal activity to taxes how long before people think rape or murder should just be taxed instead of arrest and prosecution?


I don't see a slippery slope here because murder and rape can't by any stretch be seen as victimless crimes. 

I'd have to say it's really a matter of, should it ever have been illegal in the first place? 

Making something legal shouldn't be seen as a government endorsement in any way. 

Prior to prohibition there were no drug laws. Making them illegal has, I'd have to say, been an abject failure at stopping the problems they cause, addiction and etc. It has however generated a monstrous illegal demand, and fueled a monstrous industry. Without drug laws, all the ghetto gangs, the Mexican cartels, the Pablo Escobars of the world - all their money dries up.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> I would have to respectfully disagree completely with this, although I would have at one point agreed completely. The hinge word there is "voluntary."
> 
> So much of the information that's out there about drugs is so simplistic and such a waste of time that it's just about useless - all that just say no / this is your brain on drugs stuff - that's just bull**** pushed by politicians, cops, schools, and everyone else to make themselves feel like they're doing something, and get themselves some money for programs.
> 
> You have to understand that the crux of addiction is that it's INvoluntary. People doing something they know they shouldn't, they know will have bad consequences, yet they just can't stop.


I don't think you understood what he said. He said that all addicts start voluntarily. There is plenty of information out there telling you not to.

Don't do meth, not even once. Or crack, or heroine. You know how addicting it is. So it is a choice.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> I don't see a slippery slope here because murder and rape can't by any stretch be seen as victimless crimes.


Either can drug abuse. 

You know what happens to the children of drug addicts? Do you know what happens to the communities in which drug addicts live? Drugs addicts trying to get their next fix is the cause of an immense amount of crime, leaving a trail of victims behind.

I don't really like the war on drugs, I think it is going terribly. But I also don't see drug use as a good thing nor victimless.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

HackWork said:


> Either can drug abuse.
> 
> You know what happens to the children of drug addicts? Do you know what happens to the communities in which drug addicts live? Drugs addicts trying to get their next fix is the cause of an immense amount of crime, leaving a trail of victims behind.
> 
> I don't really like the war on drugs, I think it is going terribly. But I also don't see drug use as a good thing nor victimless.


Of course I know that, everybody knows that. 

The children are victims of addiction, not drugs. That's not a bull**** distinction. 

If drugs were legal, far fewer addicts would have to resort to prostitution, burglarly, etc. to support their habit. (Think alcohol.)


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> Of course I know that, everybody knows that.
> 
> The children are victims of addiction, not drugs. That's not a bull**** distinction.


 Semantics. In the end the victims are still there due to the drugs.



> If drugs were legal, far fewer addicts would have to resort to prostitution, burglarly, etc. to support their habit. (Think alcohol.)


Why?


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

HackWork said:


> Semantics. In the end the victims are still there due to the drugs.


It isn't semantics. If someone can drink, smoke pot, or use whatever drug and stay out from behind the wheel of their car, make sure someone's watching their kids, and make sure they're on time for work in the morning, and only drink / use what they can afford, the whole nightmare doesn't occur. That would be "moderation." 



> Why? (would fewer addicts resort to crime if drugs were legal)


The money, silly! Drugs are expensive because they are illegal, and people wind up with habits they can't afford. 

I am not saying that legalization would make addiction un-miserable, it would just lessen the awful side effects of people resorting to crime to satisfy their addictions. 

There was a thing on 60 minutes a few years ago, I think Switzerland decided to try legalizing heroin under clinical supervision, and the addict participants were holding down jobs, paying their rent, not overdosing etc. - not doing great, but better.


----------



## Essex (Feb 4, 2015)

Anyone that thinks an addict wants to be one has no idea what they are talking about.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> It isn't semantics. If someone can drink, smoke pot, or use whatever drug and stay out from behind the wheel of their car, make sure someone's watching their kids, and make sure they're on time for work in the morning, and only drink / use what they can afford, the whole nightmare doesn't occur. That would be "moderation."


 Moderation doesn't happen. Drug abuse leaves a trail of victims.



> The money, silly! *Drugs are expensive because they are illegal*, and people wind up with habits they can't afford.


 I don't know if I could agree with that. Drugs would go up in price if they were legal, regulated, and taxed.



> I am not saying that legalization would make addiction un-miserable, it would just lessen the awful side effects of people resorting to crime to satisfy their addictions.


 I completely disagree with that. I think making drugs legal would cause more people to do them and make society even crappier than it is.

And I know this is where you are going to bring up alcohol and prohibition, but there is a very big difference in the addictions from alcohol to that of heroin and meth, the way they rewire your brain for life. 



> There was a thing on 60 minutes a few years ago, I think Switzerland decided to try legalizing heroin under clinical supervision, and the addict participants were holding down jobs, paying their rent, not overdosing etc. - not doing great, but better.


Yeah, that's great. So not only would we have just as many heroine junkies, but we would have more people who start using it because they think it's safer under supervision. 

Like I said, there is no easy answer either way.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Essex said:


> Anyone that thinks an addict wants to be one has no idea what they are talking about.


An addict chooses to be one by using drugs that they know they will get addicted to.

It's like putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, hoping that it misfires and you don't blow your head off.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Now you're making me agree with Essex, knock it off. 

Look, the truth is I thought exactly the same way you did, and it was a huge mistake. I didn't understand what was going on with the people in my life who are affected by addiction and I really wish I had known sooner. 

I am horrified to admit that it was a reality show that changed my view. Really it's more of a documentary style than a reality show but still. Dr. Drew's Celebrity Rehab show. That guy has become my favorite TV doctor by a long shot. He doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the reality TV ****birds, he's strictly a class act. 

I am not going to do a very good job changing your perspective here. If you really want to learn something about addiction, I challenge you to watch one season of that show and tell me you did not learn something important.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

splatz said:


> Of course I know that, everybody knows that.
> 
> The children are victims of addiction, not drugs. That's not a bull**** distinction.
> 
> If drugs were legal, far fewer addicts would have to resort to prostitution, burglarly, etc. to support their habit. (Think alcohol.)


If all drugs were made legal at 0600 this am, that would change the way addicts pay for them how? What, they are magically going to run out this afternoon and become CEOs of Fortune 500 companies to pay for their legal drug of choice? Give me a freaking break. Making them legal would just open doors for more losers to engage and become completely useless.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> Now you're making me agree with Essex, knock it off.
> 
> Look, the truth is I thought exactly the same way you did, and it was a huge mistake. I didn't understand what was going on with the people in my life who are affected by addiction and I really wish I had known sooner.
> 
> ...


What did I say, that you don't agree with, that would be changed by me watching that show?

My stances are this:

1) You choose to be an addict by choosing to do those drugs in the first place. You made a voluntary and conscience choice, a very stupid one. Don't do meth, don't smoke crack, you may be addicted on their first time. Hell, there is even a large set of internet memes about "Meth, not even once" since we know it's so addicting. So don't do it. It really is that simple. I would love to do a line of blow right now, you know why I don't? The above paragraph.

2) Drug abuse hurts society. It is not victimless. It hurts the children of the abusers, the families, and all the other victims who suffer due to the crimes caused directly by the drugs (the dealing, the funding, the acquisition, etc.).

So what will Dr Drew's show change about that? I already have sympathy for addicts since I understand how hard it is.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Essex said:


> Anyone that thinks an addict wants to be one has no idea what they are talking about.


I knew it, this is why I asked you nicely to put down the ganja. We can see the abuse of said materials in your posts. Have you tried rehab yet?


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

splatz said:


> The money, silly! Drugs are expensive because they are illegal, and people wind up with habits they can't afford.


Really, pot is legal in Colorado, a good friend was complaining to me the other night that when he went there he found it was overly expensive compared to the illegal stuff he usually buys. He mentioned it was @ $250 for so many fractions of an ounce of some bubblegum flavored crap. It's all greek to me, I have enjoyed ONLY alcohol in my lifetime.

Try again! To make us see the money factor in this.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

MechanicalDVR said:


> Really, pot is legal in Colorado, a good friend was complaining to me the other night that when he went there he found it was overly expensive compared to the illegal stuff he usually buys. He mentioned it was @ $250 for so many fractions of an ounce of some bubblegum flavored crap. It's all greek to me, I have enjoyed ONLY alcohol in my lifetime.
> 
> Try again! To make us see the money factor in this.


Yeah, buying legalized drugs will be just like buying cigarettes. They sell for $8-10 a pack here.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

MechanicalDVR said:


> If all drugs were made legal at 0600 this am, that would change the way addicts pay for them how? What, they are magically going to run out this afternoon and become CEOs of Fortune 500 companies to pay for their legal drug of choice? Give me a freaking break. *Making them legal would just open doors for more losers to engage and become completely useless.*


Here's my concern, it won't be just losers.

If you legalize drugs you will be telling people that they are ok. So many of the normal people who would go out to a bar on Friday night may now go to an opium den. 

Tell me how that will be good for society :no:


----------



## Essex (Feb 4, 2015)

Rehab is for quitters.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

HackWork said:


> Here's my concern, it won't be just losers.
> 
> If you legalize drugs you will be telling people that they are ok. So many of the normal people who would go out to a bar on Friday night may now go to an opium den.
> 
> Tell me how that will be good for society :no:


I agree with you 100%. I say losers because that is exactly what they will be once addicted, more low lifes dragging society down the road.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

There's a difference between decriminalization and legalization.

You decriminalize something you don't want users to do so you can properly treat addiction like the medical problem that it is without fear of punishment. This still leaves the window open for punishing dealers and suppliers if you believe that's the best course of action.

Treating addicts like criminals is totally counterproductive. We've tried it for several decades now and failed miserably.

Also, I want to be wicked clear: If you smoke or drink, you're also a drug user. For some reason people love to get on their high horses about illegal substances: Illegality has nothing to do with how a substance may affect a person or what addiction risk it carries. Legal alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription drug addiction are some of the biggest health threats this country faces.

We really need to stop trying so hard to stigmatize people.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Big John said:


> There's a difference between decriminalization and legalization.
> 
> You decriminalize something you don't want users to do so you can properly treat addiction like the medical problem that it is without fear of punishment. This still leaves the window open for punishing dealers and suppliers if you believe that's the best course of action.
> 
> ...


 
You've made many references of drugs to smoking and alcohol, but there are differences.

What would you rather live in, a neighborhood with a bunch of cigarette smokers and some alcoholics (ie. a normal neighborhood)? Or a neighborhood with heroin, crack, and meth junkies (ie. a ghetto or trailerpark)?


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

HackWork said:


> You've made many references of drugs to smoking and alcohol, but there are differences.
> 
> What would you rather live in, a neighborhood with a bunch of cigarette smokers and some alcoholics (ie. a normal neighborhood)? Or a neighborhood with heroin, crack, and meth junkies (ie. a ghetto or trailerpark)?


What about Detroit?


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

If a guy hits my car drunk versus hitting my car high on meth, which one damages my car more? I don't want *any* neighbors with debilitating addictions.

My point was I think we need to worry a lot less about wagging our fingers at addicts, and start seriously shifting our goals towards trying to get people help.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Big John said:


> If a guy hits my car drunk versus hitting my car high on meth, which one damages my car more? I don't want *any* neighbors with debilitating addictions.


 I know you are a really smart person, so when I see you act like this I have to wonder if your liberal nature truly blinds you or if you are deliberately being obtuse?

Every neighborhood is filled with smokers and people who drink alcohol, all of them. The Hollywood Hills, the most expensive parts of Manhattan, the average middle class suburbs. 

Now show me a neighborhood with a high concentration of crack, heroin, and/or meth addicts.

It's you who made the comparison, you likened hardcore drug abusers to cigarette smokers and people who drink alcohol, so please explain this to me.


----------



## Essex (Feb 4, 2015)

If anyone is suffering an addiction it does not matter what the substance is. It is only the legality of said substance that makes a difference. If a heroin addict were to be able to purchase legally heroin and have the means to pay does anyone think this person would effect their lives in any way! Of course not. On the other foot if cigarettes were to made illegal and the black market forced the prices high you would get criminal gangs operating to feed their nicotine addiction. 

Legality to an addict is just a minor pain in the arse. It will not stop them.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Essex said:


> If anyone is suffering an addiction it does not matter what the substance is. It is only the legality of said substance that makes a difference. If a heroin addict were to be able to purchase legally heroin and have the means to pay does anyone think this person would effect their lives in any way! Of course not. On the other foot if cigarettes were to made illegal and the black market forced the prices high you would get criminal gangs operating to feed their nicotine addiction.
> 
> Legality to an addict is just a minor pain in the arse. It will not stop them.


Dude you really need a serious reality check. Cigarettes are a huge commodity that many organized crime groups smuggle inside the US, from the lesser taxed southern states up to the northern heavily taxed states. Those $8 cigarettes Hack mentioned are about half that much in my state.


----------



## Essex (Feb 4, 2015)

Cigarettes here are about $15-20 for 20


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Essex said:


> Cigarettes here are about $15-20 for 20


I'd rather drink. It's cheaper, cleaner, less dangerous, and doesn't leave you with nasty breath or yellow teeth. I forgot teeth aren't big over there.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Hax, I'm never being deliberately obtuse, but I know your love for arguments means you will avoid trying to see someone else's point. I'm not interested in playing that game. Believe it or not, I actually don't enjoy arguing with you.

I'll say this and that's it: My point was not that cigarettes = heroine (which I think you already understand). My point was that we get really worked up the morality of what someone is addicted to. We're really concerned with looking down on folks with certain types of addiction, just see the "loser" comments in this thread. When in reality, addiction comes in many shapes and sizes and affects our friends, family, and neighbors. Someone addicted to cigarettes or alcohol is no less of an addict than someone addicted to meth or heroine, the only difference is the destructiveness of the substance and the severity of the individual addiction.

So I very sincerely don't care what substance a person is on once their addiction becomes damaging. It's pointless to pretend that someone destroying their life through an alcohol or painkiller addiction is somehow "better" than the guy on crack.

The goal should not be to worry about the substance, it should be to worry about the person.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Big John said:


> Hax, I'm never being deliberately obtuse, but I know your love for arguments means you will avoid trying to see someone else's point.


 I see exactly what you wrote. You can try to turn this around on me, but it is YOU who wanted to be "wicked clear" when you made the comparison of hardcore drug users to cigarette and alcohol users. 

You can say that I like to argue, but the only thing I will apologize for is holding you to the words that you speak. 



> So I very sincerely don't care what substance a person is on once their addiction becomes damaging. It's pointless to pretend that someone destroying their life through an alcohol or painkiller addiction is somehow "better" than the guy on crack.


 Bologna. It's not pointless. A person addicted to cigarettes rolleyes is not going to cut your throat for 3 dollars like a crackhead will. A neighborhood of alcoholics (college town) is not going to be a slum ghetto like one filled with meth or heroin addicts.

This is absolutely insane. 



> The goal should not be to worry about the substance, it should be to worry about the person.


 Again, bologna. I don't care how many cigarette addicts are out there, they don't scare me. Crack heads scare me, heroin junkies scare me. People on bath salts scare me. People who drink too many beers per week don't scare me at all. The substance that they are addicted to is the main factor in this.


----------



## Essex (Feb 4, 2015)

MechanicalDVR said:


> I'd rather drink. It's cheaper, cleaner, less dangerous, and doesn't leave you with nasty breath or yellow teeth. I forgot teeth aren't big over there.




http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/17/health/british-american-bad-teeth-study/


----------



## Essex (Feb 4, 2015)

More people are killed via prescription misuse than heroin and cocaine combined.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Essex said:


> http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/17/health/british-american-bad-teeth-study/


So, now we know. CNN lies about more than politics!


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Essex said:


> More people are killed via prescription misuse than heroin and cocaine combined.


Let me guess, via CNN?


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Just a few things before I bow out. 

If you watch the series I mentioned, Celebrity Rehab, you may understand things a little more deeply than you do now, and with as many people affected as there are, you may be better off understanding better. 

If legal weed is expensive in Colorado for now because of simple supply and demand, so many people want legal weed that they are flocking to Colorado to buy it. In other places with legal weed, it's cheaper than it is here where it's illegal. It's simple economics, take away the costs associated with smuggling, siezures, etc., and that nobody wants to get into the business for a small markup, it'll be cheap. 

For a person with a proclivity for drug addiction, using meth or coke even once is playing with fire. For many people, it isn't. (Problem is, it's hard to know reliably if someone has the proclivity.) The Air Force used amphetamines for pilots. They were prescribed for years as diet pills and used quite a bit in sports in the 70's. Many people I know tried cocaine in their 20s back in the 80s, by far the majority had no trouble setting it aside. Now opiates are another animal ... I know a number of stories of people that drank and did whatever else and never had it get away from them, but Oxy was their waterloo. 

I don't recommend drugs, I don't use drugs, barely even drink, I am generally law abiding to a "T." 

If drugs were legal, I still wouldn't use them, I try to stick to a simple traditional natural diet when I can. 

I think that prohbition is basically a well intention-ed but poorly thought out and unsuccessful policy. 

I disagree with pro-weed people that talk about how benign it is, I disagree with anti drug people that see the issue too black and white. 

I am first and foremost anti-addiction, I see that as the real issue.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

splatz said:


> Just a few things before I bow out.
> 
> 
> I disagree with pro-weed people that talk about how benign it is, I disagree with anti drug people that see the issue too black and white.




I could agree with you more on this aspect. I've talked and worked with too many pot promoters that seem like they are missing huge quantities of brain cells.


----------



## Essex (Feb 4, 2015)

MechanicalDVR said:


> Let me guess, via CNN?




No. Many sources.


----------



## Arc'n'Spark (Jul 21, 2011)

HackWork said:


> Big John said:
> 
> 
> > If a guy hits my car drunk versus hitting my car high on meth, which one damages my car more? I don't want *any* neighbors with debilitating addictions.
> ...



You're an idiot if you think there aren't people in the Hollywood Hills or the Upper East Side smoking crack, shooting dope, and snorting lines off of hookers' chests right now. Addiction transcends all social stratifications: age, gender, race, income level, sexual orientation, none of it makes a difference. You're also a complete moron if you think that alcoholism isn't absolutley as destructive and debilitating as an addiction to any of the "hard drugs."


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Arc'n'Spark said:


> You're an idiot if you think there aren't people in the Hollywood Hills or the Upper East Side smoking crack, shooting dope, and snorting lines off of hookers' chests right now. Addiction transcends all social stratifications: age, gender, race, income level, sexual orientation, none of it makes a difference. You're also a complete moron if you think that alcoholism isn't absolutley as destructive and debilitating as an addiction to any of the "hard drugs."


You didn't read a word of what I wrote. You twisted everything around to the point in which it makes no sense.

I understand that the drug thing makes you emotional, but that is no reason to lie to yourself and call other people names.


----------



## BaumannMN (Mar 22, 2016)

Lone Crapshooter said:


> I do have a free and effective solution for the drug problem. DO NOTHING.
> 
> The facts are like this. If someone is addicted to a illegal drug they should have not used that drug to start with. Through their voluntary action they became a drug addict. There is enough information out there they should have known not to mess with illegal drugs to start with.
> 
> ...


As a person who has lived through the devastating consequences of addiction, I equally want educate you and punch you in the throat. 

I know that education does a much better job so I'll save my raging anger for my workout later tonight.

You epitomize the ignorant stigma about addiction that has kept many recovered people from speaking up against the stigma and has kept many more people stuck in the diseased brain state of addiction. 

If you continue spouting unhelpful opinions about something you likely have no actual knowledge, then please know that you are wrong.


----------



## Arc'n'Spark (Jul 21, 2011)

HackWork said:


> Arc'n'Spark said:
> 
> 
> > You're an idiot if you think there aren't people in the Hollywood Hills or the Upper East Side smoking crack, shooting dope, and snorting lines off of hookers' chests right now. Addiction transcends all social stratifications: age, gender, race, income level, sexual orientation, none of it makes a difference. You're also a complete moron if you think that alcoholism isn't absolutley as destructive and debilitating as an addiction to any of the "hard drugs."
> ...



You're right, I made that too personal. You're just such a dickhead sometimes, it's hard not to... and that's coming from someone that enjoys most of your posts


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Arc'n'Spark said:


> You're right, I made that too personal. You're just such a dickhead sometimes, it's hard not to... and that's coming from someone that enjoys most of your posts


Again, you are letting your emotions take over. You haven't refuted a single thing that I said, you just attacked me personally. 

I can do that too, if you'd like. I could say how someone like you who automatically comes to the defense of drug addicts probably does so because you saw how hard it was on your meth addict father and your crack head prostitute mother. 

But is that really necessary? Isn't it better to actually have a discussion? 

Saying "_You're an idiot, a dickhead, and complete moron if you don't agree with me and my view_" is far from a discussion.


----------



## Arc'n'Spark (Jul 21, 2011)

Lighten up Hax. How'd you ever make it on construction sites if you get your panties in a wad everytime someone calls you a dickhead?

As to your point and a civil discussion, I understand your point very well. It's the same point you make any other time you get into a "discussion" with any other member: that you're right and anyone who sees things differently than you is wrong. Don't get upset when I play the same card against you.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Arc'n'Spark said:


> Lighten up Hax. How'd you ever make it on construction sites if you get your panties in a wad everytime someone calls you a dickhead?


Your first post in this thread is what I would consider "panties in a wad", not mine. 

Why backpedal?





Arc'n'Spark said:


> You're an idiot if you think there aren't people in the Hollywood Hills or the Upper East Side smoking crack, shooting dope, and snorting lines off of hookers' chests right now. Addiction transcends all social stratifications: age, gender, race, income level, sexual orientation, none of it makes a difference. You're also a complete moron if you think that alcoholism isn't absolutley as destructive and debilitating as an addiction to any of the "hard drugs."


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Your edit:


Arc'n'Spark said:


> As to your point and a civil discussion, I understand your point very well. It's the same point you make any other time you get into a "discussion" with any other member: that you're right and anyone who sees things differently than you is wrong. Don't get upset when I play the same card against you.


What do you claim to "be right" about? You didn't even make a reasonable stance. You just had what looked like a very emotional rant and decided to throw insults instead of actually discussing the subject.

And now you have turned this entire thing 100% about me.

I guess you were just looking to troll? Well, I guess you succeeded since I fell for it.


----------



## streetliter (Apr 13, 2013)

MechanicalDVR said:


> splatz said:
> 
> 
> > The money, silly! Drugs are expensive because they are illegal, and people wind up with habits they can't afford.
> ...


 You do know alcohol will kill you 5000× quicker than pot ever would, right?..


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

streetliter said:


> You do know alcohol will kill you 5000× quicker than pot ever would, right?..


Doesn't matter.... You can resurrect dead things, like 2 year old threads....:vs_laugh:


----------



## streetliter (Apr 13, 2013)

Switched said:


> streetliter said:
> 
> 
> > You do know alcohol will kill you 5000× quicker than pot ever would, right?..
> ...


 where did you come from?...and why?...


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

streetliter said:


> where did you come from?...and why?...



Because he can!

He's been here a long while.

You do realize the point of a forum is to get a response to the things you post correct?

BTW,

I think you need to work on your 'quoting' skills.


----------



## joebanana (Dec 21, 2010)

Southeast Power said:


> Some jobs require it, some dont.
> We have a multi-million dollar program here in Florida that requires a urine test for public assistance. I think they caught someone last month and saved our great state about $46.32. We are a proud people.


Yeah but.....the test costs $65. Hows that a "savings"? Just think of all the money saved on people who don't do drugs. :glasses:


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

360max said:


> I can see the litigation/lawsuits already for someone who visited Colorada and failed a drug test at work when back in their home state where pot is not legal.


Why would there be a lawsuit? Can a private company not do whatever they want? If I don't want my employees to drink milk I should have that right? right?


----------



## joebanana (Dec 21, 2010)

MechanicalDVR said:


> Because he can!
> 
> He's been here a long while.
> 
> ...


Did you notice the original date of this post?


----------



## streetliter (Apr 13, 2013)

MechanicalDVR said:


> streetliter said:
> 
> 
> > where did you come from?...and why?...
> ...


 sure thing chief....


----------



## joebanana (Dec 21, 2010)

BaumannMN said:


> As a person who has lived through the devastating consequences of addiction, I equally want educate you and punch you in the throat.
> 
> I know that education does a much better job so I'll save my raging anger for my workout later tonight.
> 
> ...


Consider this: Drug use, abuse, and/or addiction are a medical issue, NOT a criminal act. Criminalizing a medical condition IS a criminal act.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

joebanana said:


> Consider this: Drug use, abuse, and/or addiction are a medical issue, NOT a criminal act. Criminalizing a medical condition IS a criminal act.


This is the typical liberal snowflake mentality that is destroying our country.

I'd doubt you'd feel the same way if your family was killed during a robbery by crack heads and someone dismissed it as a medical problem.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

joebanana said:


> Did you notice the original date of this post?


Absolutely!


----------



## gnuuser (Jan 13, 2013)

i suffered through 2 addictions (one involuntary)
smoking i started when i was 12 and quit cold turkey after 25 years of smoking and yes it was f***ing hard to quit!
the second was pain meds given after an accident. (also quit cold turkey)
and that was even harder than quitting smoking.

making drugs legal in my opinion is a bad idea period,
using narcan for overdose of illicit drugs! questionable.
If narcan is used *the addict must pay for it* including all medical cost 
(Not insurance companies, not taxpayers, not family members)
second time 5 year jail term(and not at a resort prison camp)

anyone caught dealing drugs and smuggling drugs (20 years hard labor for first time offense).

drug lords on the other hand should be hunted down and exterminated 
with extreme prejudice.

while pot is not classed as a hard drug it can incapacitate if overdosing, and it can seriously influence you ability to think straight, do i want anyone working on a dangerous job being stoned? Hell no!
not that i care for them but i do care about others who would be hurt by their stupidity.

yes i do enjoy a beer now and then but im talking about 1 (12 ounce bottle) a day and no more.

alcohol abuse stems from people wanting that feel good buzz, and that is when they cease to be intelligent enough to know when to stop.
antabuse (Disulfiram) administered to a sober alcoholic can be a deterrent to drinking and a damn powerful one at that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disulfiram

im not being a [email protected] but something must be done


----------



## icdubois (Nov 16, 2013)

Awesome my first zombie thread


----------

