- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/1/22 at 11:50 am to Ramblin Wreck
We aren’t talking about alcohol!
Posted on 4/1/22 at 11:55 am to KAGTASTIC
quote:
West Coast states shows us the future of this nation once this is done.
when I was growing up in SE oklahoma (80s-90s) we used to refer to MJ as the county's cash crop. It was kind of a joke but it was everywhere.
There are tons of conservatives/libertarians that have cultivated, traded, and consumed mary jane for a very long time.
And many of us are successful responsible adults.
Posted on 4/1/22 at 11:57 am to Dirtyboro
(Courtesy of NC_Tigah)
This post was edited on 4/1/22 at 11:58 am
Posted on 4/1/22 at 11:59 am to Ramblin Wreck
quote:
And I bet you are an extremely valuable contributor when selected to be on a project team with critical deliverables and deadlines.
Says the guy on TD in the middle of the workday.
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:01 pm to Ross
quote:
engineers I know working for Blue Origin
I'm sure there are. I guess that explains why every time we have an accident or productivity issues and decide to do implement random drug tests, the individuals that are the least efficient employees are the ones that test hot.
It is a slippery slope to go down whenever you start legalizing drugs. The undesirable results associated with any controversial decision seem to always surface. An example is how went from allowing gay marriage to full fledge teaching school kids to question their gender and the pledge of allegiance to the pride flag.
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:02 pm to Dirtyboro
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:03 pm to WonderWartHawg
quote:
Do you really believe this will be any worse than alcohol being legal?
Yes.
I'm for legalization but I'm not going to ignore that I already get hit with the strong smell of a skunk's arse nearly every day as I make my way home through BR traffic.
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:03 pm to Esquire
"quote:
And I bet you are an extremely valuable contributor when selected to be on a project team with critical deliverables and deadlines.
Says the guy on TD in the middle of the workday."
And I bet you are an extremely valuable contributor when selected to be on a project team with critical deliverables and deadlines.
Says the guy on TD in the middle of the workday."
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:04 pm to Esquire
quote:
Says the guy on TD in the middle of the workday.
Says the guy on his lunch break that has been at work since 7 AM.
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:04 pm to Ramblin Wreck
Probably because the majority of folks use marijuana, and marijuana stays in your system for a long time, likely weeks if you’re a regular smoker. So, anytime you random drug test someone under 40, you have a better than 50% shot of them testing positive for weed.
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:07 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
There doesn't need to be any argument other than the fact that consenting adults should be allowed to do as they please with their own bodies and in their own time.
Then why stop at weed? Crack and meth should be legal as well by this standard.
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:07 pm to kingbob
I agree with Ramblin Wreck.
But, you will not have any effect on the Cheech Brigade!
MUH WEED!
But, you will not have any effect on the Cheech Brigade!
MUH WEED!
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:11 pm to Ramblin Wreck
weed laws remove your rights, even if you do not suppport using weed at all
first and foremost is pissing in a bottle
then when someone "pisses hot" they are at fault,
even with all the known issues with tests being grossly unreliable, along with many testing labs being incompetent
even if the company was violating osha laws, forcing questionable practices, etc,
its a real easy way for companies to refuse workers comp, lawsuits, etc,
because you tested positive, it's all your fault.
first and foremost is pissing in a bottle
then when someone "pisses hot" they are at fault,
even with all the known issues with tests being grossly unreliable, along with many testing labs being incompetent
even if the company was violating osha laws, forcing questionable practices, etc,
its a real easy way for companies to refuse workers comp, lawsuits, etc,
because you tested positive, it's all your fault.
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:24 pm to Flats
Addictive substances (this includes caffeine, imo) present an interesting dilemma to the libertarian thinker.
See, libertarianism is all about consent. In the free market, people trade their time, goods, and services for the time, goods, and services of others. This is done through the law of contract, which requires a “meeting of the minds.” In this meeting of the minds, the two parties must know, or reasonably should know, the terms of the deal, the object of the contract, and must be capable of consenting to said contract.
We have ages of majority because we assume that people younger than a certain age do not have enough knowledge or wisdom to understand what they are agreeing to, and thus cannot consent to contracts, forming contracts that are relatively null (enforceable only so long as the non-consentable party continues to consent until one year past achieving age of majority). In addition, there are other “vices” of consent which can nullify a contract by eroding said consent like insanity, fraud, and duress.
So, if we already have restrictions on contracts based on consent, where does that leave addiction? Does addiction inhibit one’s ability to consent? Well, we know that addiction changes the way the brain functions. We know that it can override decision-making, perverting your brain’s natural survival instinct by instead utilizing it to prioritize the addiction instead. An addict will do just about anything to satisfy their addiction, including agreeing to contracts which they never would have entered into if not for the sake of their addiction. These choices tend to include violent and criminal activities in order to support their habit. Is addiction, thus, not, at least in a way, a form of duress that could be argued to void consent?
So, when a libertarian argues that highly addictive substances should be freely purchasable over the counter, I wonder about the ability of customers to truly consent to those purchases. They are not like any other customer price-shopping and trading their currencies for commodities. They have to purchase the product. They are compelled to purchase the product. They are forced to purchase the product, and force is not consent.
At the same time, who should be responsible for stopping the addict from purchasing the addictive substance? We have seen that government is not able to stop the sales from happening, only pushing addicts to a black market where tainted products kill in the tens of thousands annually. Nor is the illegality of these substances stopping people from consuming them.
Every philosophy has tough issues which challenge it’s core premises. And despite “drugs” being a banner issue of the libertarian movement, it is also one of its most difficult issues to tackle philosophically.
See, libertarianism is all about consent. In the free market, people trade their time, goods, and services for the time, goods, and services of others. This is done through the law of contract, which requires a “meeting of the minds.” In this meeting of the minds, the two parties must know, or reasonably should know, the terms of the deal, the object of the contract, and must be capable of consenting to said contract.
We have ages of majority because we assume that people younger than a certain age do not have enough knowledge or wisdom to understand what they are agreeing to, and thus cannot consent to contracts, forming contracts that are relatively null (enforceable only so long as the non-consentable party continues to consent until one year past achieving age of majority). In addition, there are other “vices” of consent which can nullify a contract by eroding said consent like insanity, fraud, and duress.
So, if we already have restrictions on contracts based on consent, where does that leave addiction? Does addiction inhibit one’s ability to consent? Well, we know that addiction changes the way the brain functions. We know that it can override decision-making, perverting your brain’s natural survival instinct by instead utilizing it to prioritize the addiction instead. An addict will do just about anything to satisfy their addiction, including agreeing to contracts which they never would have entered into if not for the sake of their addiction. These choices tend to include violent and criminal activities in order to support their habit. Is addiction, thus, not, at least in a way, a form of duress that could be argued to void consent?
So, when a libertarian argues that highly addictive substances should be freely purchasable over the counter, I wonder about the ability of customers to truly consent to those purchases. They are not like any other customer price-shopping and trading their currencies for commodities. They have to purchase the product. They are compelled to purchase the product. They are forced to purchase the product, and force is not consent.
At the same time, who should be responsible for stopping the addict from purchasing the addictive substance? We have seen that government is not able to stop the sales from happening, only pushing addicts to a black market where tainted products kill in the tens of thousands annually. Nor is the illegality of these substances stopping people from consuming them.
Every philosophy has tough issues which challenge it’s core premises. And despite “drugs” being a banner issue of the libertarian movement, it is also one of its most difficult issues to tackle philosophically.
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:29 pm to Ramblin Wreck
quote:
Says the guy on his lunch break that has been at work since 7 AM.
Says the guy who is working while I smoke weed and eat my lunch.
I bet my bank account has more money than your bank account
Likewise for investment accounts.
Should I go fish at my camp on the river this weekend or should I go shoot guns on my acreage?
I’ll let you decide what I get high and do this weekend
This post was edited on 4/1/22 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:31 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
There doesn't need to be any argument other than the fact that consenting adults should be allowed to do as they please with their own bodies and in their own time.
The government should not be regulating a plant in order to pacify a portion of the population's view on social vices.
I hope you do not claim to be a conservative or to support freedom and liberty.
fricking this and thank you.
god forbid they vote for freedom.
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:31 pm to Ramblin Wreck
quote:
No, but our federal government certainly encourages the masses to stay home and not work.
Well, if they're going to be staying home all day anyway, they may as well get to smoke weed. Amirite?
But to be honest, I really haven't noticed the federal government trying to convince me to stay home and not work. It's been QUITE the opposite over the course of my career.
But regardless of the federal government, I'm going to work when I want to, and not work when I don't want to. They're not the boss of me.
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:34 pm to Ramblin Wreck
quote:
And I bet you are an extremely valuable contributor when selected to be on a project team with critical deliverables and deadlines.
yea you do realize that just because one supports freedom for people to do as they please so long as it doesnt affect anyone elses personal property rights, that it doesnt mean they participate in those vices.
i support gambling and legalized weed and i dont do either and wouldnt either way. hell i dont even drink that much but i still support it being legal.
if it doesnt affect other peoples personal property rights....it should be legal.
stop being an emotional bitch trying to act like if one supports freedom, they cant be a professional or contributing member of society.
Posted on 4/1/22 at 12:34 pm to kingbob
quote:
Every philosophy has tough issues which challenge it’s core premises.
Absolutely. Civilized cultures are always going to have some tension about where to draw the lines.
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News