One is illegal, one isn't.
I don't disagree with the notion that, by and large, Alcohol is the more dangerous product AND the more deterimental to ones performance on a job site. That said, the illegality currently associated with Marijuana enters new issues into the equation.
An employee who smokes marijuana has proven themselves and individual that, to at least some degree, will wantonly violate the law for their own enjoyment. As a retailer, for example, this would be a red flag type of trait due to the prevelence of employee caused shrink in that business.
An employee who smokes marijuana is also someone who is routinely putting themselves in danger of legal action that may hinder their profession. A job that has a public facing side of it may take issue with this, and any job could take issue in terms of dependability. While illegal action can occur while an individual is drinking, it requir additional actions to do so. The very actions of purchasing marijuana as well as smoking it are things that put the individual at direct risk of possible legal action.
If/When Marijuana becomes legalized then I would agree....testing for it would be somewhat foolish if one doesn't also go about asertaining if the individual drinks as well. But at the time being, the notion that it IS an illegal substanc adds an entirely different dynamic to the situation that one can't simply ignore.
Some people are individual who engage in horrible judgement, or have very bad tempers that give way to common sense or reason, do we need ban guns for everyone becuase there are those people that need protecting?
Some people have addictive, compulsive behavior, as you say. They eat themselves into obesity, disease, and sometimes death on horriblely fatty and sugary food. Do we need to have the government ban high sugar or high fat foods for everyone because there are those people that need protecting?
Some of those same people with addictive, compulsive behavior, love htemselves some alcohol. Once they start drinking they can't really stop, and it affects their entire life. On top of that, their impaired judgement can lead to others being harmed as well. Shall we have the government ban alcohol for everyone because there are those that need protecting?
Or are you suggesting that JUST those with compulsive behavior need helping...in which case it would mean you should be arguing for legalization, with the government providing assistance or support to those with such behavior, rather than punishing all to "protect" a few from themselves.
Dependability? Good god, have you met a raging alcoholic?
In any case, we don't have to speculate about HIS reasons. He has made it clear he thinks recreational users are exceedingly likely to become hard users and are highly likely to become dumber as a consequence, and that is the only reason he has given so far.
You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.
However, droning on about "Silicon Valley guys" as a counter to a statement about those who smoke "all the time" isn't legitimate and deserved criticism unless one is suggesting those "Silicon Valley guys" are the types, while they're running / working at those companies, who spend all their time just constantly getting high.
I asked him if that's what he meant...and he of course refused to answer and then started droning on about Rand Paul being generally negative towards the notion of pot use and complaining that I actually expected him to be responding to what Paul said, not what he wants to imagine he said.
If you want to criticize Paul for suggesting those who smoke pot all the time tend to Lose IQ points (with no inference as to whether this is some kind of permanent loss, or simply temporary while they're "getting high all the time) and lack motivation....then be my guest. I may disagree with the criticism, but I don't feel it'd be undeserved criticism if people disagree with it. There's a chance I'd also agree with the criticism, if it was focused on criticizing him for using such an "absolute" type of statement.
If you want to criticize Paul for implying a general disapproval for pot use, be my guest again. I think it'd be rather retarded for someone to stop supporting him singularly on that, but if you want to criticize him for it again I wouldn't necessarily feel it's undeserved (I'd just think it's stupid).
But if you want to criticize him for suggesting that those who have smoken pot before, or those who occasionally or in moderation still do, lose IQ points and lack motiviation then I would say it's undeserved criticism because it's criticizing something he didn't suggest.
Last edited by Zyphlin; 06-20-13 at 09:01 AM.
Absolutely. However, nice job glossing entirely over the specific actual point being made (which was not specifically about the notion of general dependability) and instead grabbing hold of a single word. Shows your absolutely desire to be honest in debate and not simply having a specific agenda that you wish to push and are thus focused on contorting everything possible to fit that agendaDependability? Good god, have you met a raging alcoholic?
Though you do reach a whole different potential issue. Depending on the employement laws in a particular state, I believe there is significant difference between asking questions about and refusing to hire someone based on their partaking in a LEGAL activity...and doing so for an ILLEGAL one.
Regardless of what his reasons may be, and seemingly his reasons are rather laughable, there are legitimate differences between Marijuana and Alcohol that DON'T favor the notion that it's unreasonable for a business to test for Marijuana but not Alcohol. The very fact that it IS illegal and an individual is wantonly violating the law simply due to their own desire for enjoyment IS an unquestionable factor with Marijuana that is completely missing from the equation with alcohol.
Those individual would not necessarily be individuals who want "limited government" as an across the board notion, such as Guy. Rather, they're individuals who want limited government in a VERY limited sense, and don't have a strong political care beyond that.
He SPECIFICALLY said he was talking about "libertarians" who were part of the party only because they feel drugs should be legalized.
That's not wanting limited government "the same as" Guy.
I did not violate the law and put myself at legal risk to purchase my alcohol. I would not be violating the law to imbibe my alcohol.
If Marijuana becomes legalized, then I'd agree with you. I'd even say that perhaps getting drunk would be an even worse idea than getting stoned (with both still being, in general, a bad idea). But CURRENTLY...no, I'd say all actions being equal in terms, that there is a reasoned argument that getting stoned is more of a bad idea currently than getting drunk.