Support NeoGAF

[zero shift]

Who is a Jew is like a thing.
Even though Judaism is a religion, the state of Israel treat like it's a race (they call it nationality, it took me 30 years to realize it doesn't really make sense), even though you can covert into it.
It's a complicated and messed up question that the state of Israel has been avoiding since before its conception, and if you ask me, it's the real original sin of that country.
I'm a bit too drunk to write about it at length right now, but if the discussion has not drifted too far away by tomorrow, I can probably form a bit more coherent post on the issue.

Edit: Wikipedia for the rescue - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew?
I have not read that page so I can't comment about my level of agreement with it, but judging by length it should at least keep you busy for a while...

Race is such a hilarious concept. I kind of had this kind of realization as well in a way but with Latinos. I mean I understand many Mexicans being seen as a different "race" but Puerto Ricans and Cubans? Half of Brazil? Look pretty white to me.

And understand, this is not some academic wankery, it was written on my national id card, it allowed me to join the army, it granted a whole lot of special rights that were not extended for the Muslim citizens of Israel.

I always wanted to ask you more questions about life in Israel, particularly the Jewish and Arab divide.

 

[Gotchaye]

For those who think selling hard drugs should be legal:

Do you think the FDA has any role at all in regulating what foods or medications can be sold? I mean, if Merck submitted meth for FDA approval, it would clearly get rejected lickety-split. Shouldn't we bar harmful drugs under the idea that we shouldn't sell products that are unsafe to consume, in general?

If you really think it should be legal to sell heroin, should it also be legal to sell, say, thalidomide?

What about foods with excessive trans fat?

I don't think anybody thinks that we should ban products that aren't safe to use, just because they aren't safe. I can go out and buy rock climbing gear without undergoing any kind of scrutiny or paying any sort of sin tax even. Motorcycles are fairly common too.

It seems to me that it's really weird to try to justify banning something like a drug on the basis of hard-and-fast principles like "we should ban harmful things", where "harmful" is being understood in a pretty simple way that doesn't take into account what people get out of using the thing and which ignores what the real-world alternatives to banning the thing actually are.

The case for banning something has to be made on regular old consequentialist and paternalistic grounds. It makes sense for the FDA to control thalidomide because we're better off for them doing that. This is the case in part because of specific features of what thalidomide is and how people use it. It doesn't follow that we're better off for the government going to the lengths it does to discourage the recreational use of something like, say, heroin. It is painfully clear that the war on drugs is a much worse policy than not having a war on drugs. Certainly making heroin legal to sell for recreational use would be better than what we've got, and I don't see how there's any inconsistency with thinking that heroin ought to be legal to sell while thinking that the FDA should regulate drugs which are clearly being purchased for medical use, although I'm not endorsing that as ideal policy.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think things we're all agreeing on is that the 'war' is silly. Its a public health issue and should be treated that way. And more research is needed to guide public policy so we better understand what the heck were talking about and not using politicians opinions and urban myths as substitutes for facts.

I think both of those reforms should come before and are more important than which drugs are good and bad.

 

[jamesinclair]

I would think the opposite if one includes LLCs. And you still haven't said which yours is.

It's also more than a little ironic to complain about a nanny state when essentially you just want to run your own nanny state within the realm of your own little fiefdom.

Completely wrong.

Only around 20% of US businesses are corporations.


And your second statement is beyond the realm of absurdity. I guess if I set a curfew for my kids, I essentially just want to run my own nanny state within the realm of my own little fiefdom?

Better take that right away and hand it over to the feds!

You really want hiring decisions made by government bureaucrats?

It is my right to screen for bad employees in any way I deem fit, including a drug test. I have a business to run, not a drug rehab clinic.

 

[Fenderputty]

I guess I just see harder drugs as harder to obtain. I've never sought them out so I'm judging this of personal experience and assuming others have never had the opportunity but might try if able. I don't think this applies to weed because everybody can easily find access to it.

They're not harder to obtain. The weed connect is the current door into the black market. I do have personal experience.

I think the legality prevents people from trying. I think most would never try but I think there are is a large absolute number of people who have never had the opportunity. Because the restrictions limit supply in a way I don't think can be said of weed.

If most people wouldn't try, how can the number that does be large?

Restrictions do not limit supply. Supply is determined by demand. Restrictions increase price.

Look at Florida. Heroin is booming because the supply of oxy is falling.

 

[empty vessel]

Completely wrong.

Only around 20% of US businesses are corporations.

Again, you are going to need to define what a corporation is. Most people do not consider LLC's to be corporations (they are not taxed as such, depending upon certain elections), but they are in fact state-created entities.

And your second statement is beyond the realm of absurdity. I guess if I set a curfew for my kids, I essentially just want to run my own nanny state within the realm of my own little fiefdom?

Yes. But that is generally considered acceptable for children.

You really want hiring decisions made by government bureaucrats?

I want hiring decisions regulated, yes. That's why you cannot discriminate when hiring on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc: the public has democratically decided that you cannot.

It is my right to screen for bad employees in any way I deem fit, including a drug test. I have a business to run, not a drug rehab clinic.

Nah, definitely not your right.

 

[jamesinclair]

Again, you are going to need to define what a corporation is. Most people do not consider LLC's to be corporations (they are not taxed as such, depending upon certain elections), but they are in fact state-created entities.



I want hiring decisions regulated, yes. That's why you cannot discriminate when hiring on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc: the public has democratically decided that you cannot.



Nah, definitely not your right.

Im using the IRS definition, which quotes around 75% of businesses as sole proprietorships, 20% as corporations, and the remainder as partnerships.

Ah yes, the struggles of the pothead are equal to those of american minorities.

We should cancel MLK Day and make 4/20 a federal holiday instead, in recognition of their struggles.

We all know that ones decision to take drugs is as significant as ones race, sex or religion.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I think things we're all agreeing on is that the 'war' is silly. Its a public health issue and should be treated that way. And more research is needed to guide public policy so we better understand what the heck were talking about and not using politicians opinions and urban myths as substitutes for facts.

I think both of those reforms should come before and are more important than which drugs are good and bad.

Absolutely. What always irks me about the drug issue debate especially on the internet is the lack of knowledge of pharmacology. Even an introductory textbook or college course is more illuminating.

 

[Coriolanus]

It is my right to screen for bad employees in any way I deem fit, including a drug test. I have a business to run, not a drug rehab clinic.

Do you consider that to be a natural right?

 

[empty vessel]

Im using the IRS definition, which quotes around 75% of businesses as sole proprietorships, 20% as corporations, and the remainder as partnerships.

Then those numbers likely don't include LLCs, because they are most always a "disregarded entity" and treated as a sole proprietorship for tax purposes.

Ah yes, the struggles of the pothead are equal to those of american minorities.

Nobody said that. What was said was that the public can regulate hiring decisions. It's not a right that the business you operate has. Or if you operate a sole proprietorship, it's not a right that you have.

 

[Trouble]

Interesting.

But what depressed me about Hillary was someone on Something Awful saying that her victory will lead to a revival in anti-feminism and Men's Rights BS like how Obama's victory lead to a revival in racism.

Lol that cover.

Who wants?

 

[jamesinclair]

Then those numbers likely don't include LLCs, because they are most always a "disregarded entity" and treated as a sole proprietorship for tax purposes.

Then I dont know how LLCs are classified for this data stat.

I do know that the local diner, laundromat and nail salon are most likely not LLCs.

Nobody said that. What was said was that the public can regulate hiring decisions. It's not a right that the business you operate has. Or if you operate a sole proprietorship, it's not a right that you have.

Do you consider that to be a natural right?

To pick my employees?

Am I being trolled?

Youre both seriously saying that in America I shouldnt have a right to decide who I choose to hire?

 

[empty vessel]

To pick my employees?

Am I being trolled?

Youre both seriously saying that in America I shouldnt have a right to decide who I choose to hire?

The right? No. You have the prerogative to do so within the confines of laws democratically passed, whatever those may be.

 

[Fenderputty]

Youre both seriously saying that in America I shouldnt have a right to decide who I choose to hire?

Why do you keep talking in absolute terms as though we don't already do this.

 

[zero shift]

Completely wrong.

Only around 20% of US businesses are corporations.


And your second statement is beyond the realm of absurdity. I guess if I set a curfew for my kids, I essentially just want to run my own nanny state within the realm of my own little fiefdom?

Better take that right away and hand it over to the feds!

You really want hiring decisions made by government bureaucrats?

It is my right to screen for bad employees in any way I deem fit, including a drug test. I have a business to run, not a drug rehab clinic.

I remember when I was a lurker here you were very left wing. Are you being facetious or did you suddenly took a hard turn toward the right for some reason?

 

[Fenderputty]

I remember when I was a lurker here you were very left wing. Are you being facetious or did you suddenly took a hard turn toward the right for some reason?

He's pretty conservative when it comes to drugs.

 

[GhaleonEB]

To pick my employees?

Am I being trolled?

Youre both seriously saying that in America I shouldnt have a right to decide who I choose to hire?

Within certain confines, sure. But you can't hire a 12 year old, beacuse we've decided child labor is not a great idea. You can't discriminate against blacks or other minorities, or exclude all women beacuse you don't like them. This is what EV has been telling you repeatedly: the right to hire whoever you want is not up to you. The right to pick from the pool of available candidates, as defined by the law, is what is available to you.

(The same goes for your potential customers too, as that cake baking couple recently discovered.)

 

[Particle Physicist]

Who is a Jew is like a thing.
Even though Judaism is a religion, the state of Israel treat like it's a race (they call it nationality, it took me 30 years to realize it doesn't really make sense), even though you can covert into it.
It's a complicated and messed up question that the state of Israel has been avoiding since before its conception, and if you ask me, it's the real original sin of that country.
I'm a bit too drunk to write about it at length right now, but if the discussion has not drifted too far away by tomorrow, I can probably form a bit more coherent post on the issue.

Edit: Wikipedia for the rescue - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew?
I have not read that page so I can't comment about my level of agreement with it, but judging by length it should at least keep you busy for a while...

Ah, had no idea it was a thing. Thought it was some weird random article they wrote. Thanks!

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I remember when I was a lurker here you were very left wing. Are you being facetious or did you suddenly took a hard turn toward the right for some reason?

Or when he saw how easily PoliGAF's jimmies were rustled with his posts about gas prices and so ran with them to wind you all up.

 

[jamesinclair]

I remember when I was a lurker here you were very left wing. Are you being facetious or did you suddenly took a hard turn toward the right for some reason?

One is not left or right in everything.

Look at the Pope. Very "left" in various social and economic aspects..... but will always be 100% against abortion.

He's pretty conservative when it comes to drugs.

Not exactly.

I am libertarian when it comes to drugs. Do whatever you want to your own body, in your own home. Not my business, not anyones business.

But like the freedom of speech stuff, dont be surprised if there are consequences. One consequence is that I will choose not to hire you.

Within certain confines, sure. But you can't hire a 12 year old, beacuse we've decided child labor is not a great idea. You can't discriminate against blacks or other minorities, or exclude all women beacuse you don't like them. This is what EV has been telling you repeatedly: the right to hire whoever you want is not up to you. The right to pick from the pool of available candidates, as defined by the law, is what is available to you.

(The same goes for your potential customers too, as that cake baking couple recently discovered.)

I believe one can indeed hire a 12 year old if theyre family. Thats not the point though.

I am in favor of child labor laws, and laws against discrimination against protected classes.

But drug use is optional. Weight is optional. Tattoos are optional.

If youre 400lbs, do drugs and have tattoos, no, I will not hire you. It demonstrates a lack of self control, and lack of forward thinking, and an inability to plan and weigh consequences for your actions. All important in my business. And I dont want my insurance premiums to go up.

And no, I also can choose not to serve you if you're high, are fat, and have tattoos.

AKA: The American right to refuse service.

 

[Oblivion]

Or when he saw how easily PoliGAF's jimmies were rustled with his posts about gas prices and so ran with them to wind you all up.

Wait, he's doing this on purpose? I thought he was legit right-wing on the topic of drugs?

 

[GhaleonEB]

I believe one can indeed hire a 12 year old if theyre family. Thats not the point though.

I am in favor of child labor laws, and laws against discrimination against protected classes.

But drug use is optional. Weight is optional. Tattoos are optional.

If youre 400lbs, do drugs and have tattoos, no, I will not hire you. It demonstrates a lack of self control, and lack of forward thinking, and an inability to plan and weigh consequences for your actions. All important in my business. And I dont want my insurance premiums to go up.

And no, I also can choose not to serve you if you're high, are fat, and have tattoos.

AKA: The American right to refuse service.

You're still missing the point, which is that you don't have the inherent right to hire whoever you want. You have to follow the law. Your examples are correct, but could conceivably change should we pass laws that change them.

 

[jamesinclair]

You're still missing the point, which is that you don't have the inherent right to hire whoever you want. You have to follow the law. Your examples are correct, but could conceivably change should we pass laws that change them.

And Im saying I oppose any change in law that would limit my ability to screen my employees.

It would result in a massive loss in productivity.

Incidentally, I also think that while a company should not be able to discriminate on who they hire based on ones religion, the employee should have no right to display their religious trinkets while on duty.

No turban, no rosary, no kippa, no cross. You want to wear your little toys? Go find a new job at the car mechanic.

 

[Oblivion]

I don't get why someone would even want to administer a drug test for any other reason than to make some political point. If someone uses weed or whatever, but they're a model employee, then really (to quote a certain secretary of state) what difference does it make?

 

[empty vessel]

You're still missing the point, which is that you don't have the inherent right to hire whoever you want. You have to follow the law. Your examples are correct, but could conceivably change should we pass laws that change them.

Correct. Not everything that is currently legal to do is a "right," at least not as we usually use that term in a country like the US. In fact, most things aren't.

 

[jamesinclair]

I don't get why someone would even want to administer a drug test for any other reason than to make some political point. If someone uses weed or whatever, but they're a model employee, then really (to quote a certain secretary of state) what difference does it make?

Its no different than a job interview, personality test, typing test etc.

Say I test you and find you type 30 wpm. My standard is 35wpm. I don't hire you.

MAYBE I made a huge mistake, and you have the insight, innovation and drive to turn my company into the next Facebook. I fucked up because I set an arbitrary line in the sand.

Sucks for me. I've made a type 1 error. It happens.

But in my x years running my company, if Ive found that people who type slow are a general drain on productivity, then it makes sense to filter them out in the hiring process. Sure, i COULD lower my confidence interval so that almost everyone passes, but now Ive got a bunch of type 2s fucking me up.

Replace wpm with weed.

 

[lednerg]

...
It is my right to screen for bad employees in any way I deem fit, including a drug test. I have a business to run, not a drug rehab clinic.

And that's fine. I wasn't talking about making a law. I'm just saying that people should start speaking out against companies who fire or refuse to hire pot users. It's a draconian policy from an era we're no longer in.

 

[B-Dubs]

Its no different than a job interview, personality test, typing test etc.

Say I test you and find you type 30 wpm. My standard is 35wpm. I don't hire you.

MAYBE I made a huge mistake, and you have the insight, innovation and drive to turn my company into the next Facebook. I fucked up because I set an arbitrary line in the sand.

Sucks for me. I've made a type 1 error. It happens.

But in my x years running my company, if Ive found that people who type slow are a general drain on productivity, then it makes sense to filter them out in the hiring process. Sure, i COULD lower my confidence interval so that almost everyone passes, but now Ive got a bunch of type 2s fucking me up.

Replace wpm with weed.

You realize the two are in no way equivalent right? That one is a learned skill and the other is something you do outside the office for recreation. It's closer to not hiring someone because they like soccer and not baseball.

 

[jamesinclair]

Incidentally, I have a fun story for you all.

A 3rd party call center won a contract with Sprint. They set up a smallish office with 150 or so reps taking calls for Sprint customers (if you get them on the line you have no idea theyre 3rd party).

The 3rd party did a drug screen after the interview as part of the hiring process. Presumably, all employees were drug free.

A few months into the contract, Sprint popped in and did a surprise drug test on everyone.

I shit you not, less than 10% of the employees passed. The rest were fired on the spot.

The 3rd party lost the contract.

They're now a Verizon call center.

Moral of story: Lol Verizon.

 

[jamesinclair]

You realize the two are in no way equivalent right? That one is a learned skill and the other is something you do outside the office for recreation. It's closer to not hiring someone because they like soccer and not baseball.

If I think your enjoyment of soccer and your probable hooliganism will clash with my company culture, which has weekly basketball pickup games, and does PR for the Miami Heat....

Then it's my right to not hire you.

 

[Fenderputty]

I don't get why someone would even want to administer a drug test for any other reason than to make some political point. If someone uses weed or whatever, but they're a model employee, then really (to quote a certain secretary of state) what difference does it make?

There are certain instances in which insurance falls for the company who implements hem. Mostly industrial manufacturing type stuff.

If I think your enjoyment of soccer and your probable hooliganism will clash with my company culture, which has weekly basketball pickup games, and does PR for the Miami Heat....

Then it's my right to not hire you.

I like how your unreasonable stance pushes you into a corner where you're forced to sound like a lunatic. It makes it easy to see the argument isn't black and white.

Its no different than a job interview, personality test, typing test etc.

Say I test you and find you type 30 wpm. My standard is 35wpm. I don't hire you.

MAYBE I made a huge mistake, and you have the insight, innovation and drive to turn my company into the next Facebook. I fucked up because I set an arbitrary line in the sand.

Sucks for me. I've made a type 1 error. It happens.

But in my x years running my company, if Ive found that people who type slow are a general drain on productivity, then it makes sense to filter them out in the hiring process. Sure, i COULD lower my confidence interval so that almost everyone passes, but now Ive got a bunch of type 2s fucking me up.

Replace wpm with weed.

WPM affects job performance. Link me to the study that shows recreational drug use does.

 

[empty vessel]

If I think your enjoyment of soccer and your probable hooliganism will clash with my company culture, which has weekly basketball pickup games, and does PR for the Miami Heat....

Then it's my right to not hire you.

Prerogative. Nobody is saying that current law does not give employers the power to make hiring decisions based on a broad swath of irrational criteria.

 

[kehs]

It is my right to screen for bad employees in any way I deem fit, including a drug test. I have a business to run, not a drug rehab clinic.

Nope, it's not.

 

[jamesinclair]

Prerogative. Nobody is saying that current law does not give employers the power to make hiring decisions based on a broad swath of irrational criteria.

But theyre saying the law should change. Thats the whole point - it shouldnt.

you could make drug testing, or at least certain drug testing, illegal for job applicants.

At the very least, pot testing should be illegal.

WPM affects job performance. Link me to the study that shows recreational drug use does.

No study needed.

Your use of drugs indicates to me that you are prone to making poor decisions.

Just like your tattoo, or your weight. Or your Hummer H2. Or your use of Google Glasses.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Then those numbers likely don't include LLCs, because they are most always a "disregarded entity" and treated as a sole proprietorship for tax purposes.

This isn't true. In 2010, approximately 1,060,000 LLCs were classified as (non-farm) sole proprietorships (and LLCs made up 4.6% of all businesses taxed as non-farm sole proprietorships), compared to approximately 2,100,000 classified as partnerships (LLCs made up 64.3% of all businesses taxed as partnerships), and still others were classified as C or S corporations. There are likely fewer LLCs taxed as C or S corporations than there are LLCs taxed as sole proprietorships or partnerships, but the most recent information for C and S corporations that I found was from 2003--but I didn't look very hard.

Here's some background for those who are unfamiliar with the federal income taxation of LLCs:

[T]here are two levels of law involved in the federal taxation of business entities. First, there is the state law under which the entity is formed: a business's typical choices for state-law entities are the corporation, the partnership, and the limited liability company. Second, there is the Internal Revenue Code, which provides three basic forms of taxation: "C corporations" (taxed under subchapter C) pay their own taxes, separate and apart from the shareholders; when dividends are distributed to the shareholders, the shareholders then pay tax on those. "S corporations" (taxed under subchapter S) do not pay their own taxes. Instead, each shareholder pays taxes (at the individual rate) on his or her share of the net income. Distributions to the shareholders are not taxed, since the shareholders already paid tax on the income as it was earned. Finally, partnerships (taxed under subchapter K) likewise do not pay their own taxes, but the shareholders pay taxes (at the individual rate) on the partnership's net income. There are important distinctions between S corporations and partnerships, but they aren't relevant to this brief overview.

The Internal Revenue Code provides each type of state entity with choices as to how it will be taxed for federal income tax purposes:

A corporation will be taxed for federal purposes as a C corporation by default. If it meets certain requirements, the shareholders can elect for the corporation to be taxed as an S corporation.

A partnership formed under state law will be taxed as a partnership by default, but can elect to be taxed as a C corporation or (if it meets certain requirements) as an S corporation.

An LLC with only one member is disregarded by default (meaning that the income and deductions are all reported on a Schedule C to Form 1040, as though the business were operated as a sole proprietorship), and an LLC with more than one member is taxed as a partnership by default. In either event, the member(s) may elect to have the LLC taxed as a C corporation or (if it meets certain requirements) as an S corporation.

Now, turning away from that subject, if I wanted to read more about MMT, what (or who) should I read?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What happened to Dax? Its become an all boys club.

We're not the GOP

 

[Fenderputty]

No study needed.

Your use of drugs indicates to me that you are prone to making poor decisions.

Just like your tattoo, or your weight. Or your Hummer H2. Or your use of Google Glasses.

I like how your unreasonable stance pushes you into a corner where you're forced to sound like a lunatic. It makes it easy to see the argument isn't black and white.

.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Now, turning away from that subject, if I wanted to read more about MMT, what (or who) should I read?

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html

This is pretty good IMO

 

[Coriolanus]

Incidentally, I have a fun story for you all.

A 3rd party call center won a contract with Sprint. They set up a smallish office with 150 or so reps taking calls for Sprint customers (if you get them on the line you have no idea theyre 3rd party).

The 3rd party did a drug screen after the interview as part of the hiring process. Presumably, all employees were drug free.

A few months into the contract, Sprint popped in and did a surprise drug test on everyone.

I shit you not, less than 10% of the employees passed. The rest were fired on the spot.

The 3rd party lost the contract.

They're now a Verizon call center.

Moral of story: Lol Verizon.

Did you leave out some part of the story where the 3rd party employees were underperforming?

 

[jamesinclair]

.

So the state should force me to hire people I deem not fit?

Car ownership should be a protected class?

Its you with the unreasonable stance here.

Did you leave out some part of the story where the 3rd party employees were underperforming?

I'm not privvy to that info. Thats all I know.

 

[Fenderputty]

So the state should force me to hire people I deem not fit?

Car ownership should be a protected class?

Its you with the unreasonable stance here.

If your qualifications are unreasonable ... Yes.

But by all means continue to post about car ownership and weight. You can continue to make my argument for me.

 

[Particle Physicist]

What about drug screening for employees at medical centers. Do you guys think that should not be allowed?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

If somebody tests positive for weed, it shows a willingness to break the law.

That said, I don't think it's a factor in job performance if done off hours.

 

[Fenderputty]

What about drug screening for employees at medical centers. Do you guys think that should not be allowed?

Sure. In certain jobs such testing makes sense. A truck driver as another example. AT&T call center? Not so much.

If somebody tests positive for weed, it shows a willingness to break the law.

That said, I don't think it's a factor in job performance if done off hours.

So does speeding. Should we allow access to driving records as we'll?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

What about drug screening for employees at medical centers. Do you guys think that should not be allowed?

There are certain places and job positions that should probably require a drug test.

I really hope jamesinclair has never drank (underage or to excess) or smoked or ever sped or broken any law and not been caught cause clearly that's character issues right there and grounds for not hiring or termination.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

I read somewhere that 70% of drug users are/were employed.

 

[jamesinclair]

There are certain places and job positions that should probably require a drug test.

I really hope jamesinclair has never drank (underage or to excess) or smoked or ever sped or broken any law and not been caught cause clearly that's character issues right there and grounds for not hiring or termination.

If I knew most businesses checked for alcohol consumption, and pulled traffic history, then in the interest of being gainfully employed, I would refuse alcohol and not speed. Or apply at a company that didnt care.

Note: I have sped, but have never gotten a ticket in my life.

People know jobs check for drugs. If youre STILL doing drugs, knowing you might lose your job....then youre exactly the kind of person I wouldnt want to hire.

As I said, you make poor decisions and you have no hesitation to break the law. I dont want you.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I read somewhere that 70% of drug users are/were employed.

How else do they buy the drugs?

Edit: forgot about food stamps and welfare checks

 

[Fenderputty]

I read somewhere that 70% of drug users are/were employed.

Right. Screening isn't very effective. Unless it's hair follicle. In which case cost become prohibitive in most of the time.

 

[empty vessel]

But theyre saying the law should change. Thats the whole point - it shouldnt.

Well that's what democracies are for. To debate what the law ought to be and (ideally) to have the laws reflect majority consensus at any given time. Of course, consensuses change. (I can't help but feel the plural of consensus should be consensi.)

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html

This is pretty good IMO

Yes, that is a good one, and it eventually became Wray's recent book (so it is basically a free book).

Although I think Wray's primer is ideologically neutral, people who are interested in a more conservative or employer-centric (but still empirically accurate) take on modern fiat monetary systems can check out pragcap.com. I don't think there is anything like an organized primer on that site, but it has good explanatory posts.

If one wants a hard left take on it, see Bill Mitchell's blog: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/