Support NeoGAF

[jamesinclair]

Instead, months later, authorities proposed that then-Gov. Robert F. McDonnell plead guilty to one felony bank fraud charge that had nothing to do with corruption in office and his wife would avoid charges altogether. The governor rejected the offer, the people with knowledge of the conversations said.

Lol divorce time

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b53a62-83bd-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html

 

[NYCmetsfan]

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.

So you want to live under a corpocracy where they dictate how to live our lives?

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.

I had a hair test. That goes back three months. And yes one time can set those things off if them employer wants. I had been offered a weed at a party within that time period, lucky I passed but it made me stressed out beyond belief. Because I was a college student and tried weed one night (didn't like it either!) I shouldn't get a job?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

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

but you still broke the law

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

You had no hesitation to break the law when you decided to speed. You didn't get caught but you made a poor decision to break the law, so by your logic that makes you unhirable.

 

[jamesinclair]

but you still broke the law

You had no hesitation to break the law when you decided to speed. You didn't get caught but you made a poor decision to break the law, so by your logic that makes you unhirable.

And?

If a company elects to use this in their hiring criteria....why not? Should we pass a law banning their discretion?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

And?

If a company elects to use this in their hiring criteria....why not? Should we pass a law banning their discretion?

yes, the practice should be banned barring its usefulness in certain professions.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

And?

If a company elects to use this in their hiring criteria....why not? Should we pass a law banning their discretion?

because it's a bullshit criteria that expect people to be 100% perfect and without any flaws whatsoever? Because it doesn't actually interfere with their ability to actually do the job? Because it's a way to allow corporate control? Like APK said certain jobs require that and it's fine but for some ungodly large amount of jobs? Complete bullshit.

Pick one.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Utah will expand Medicare.

 

[jamesinclair]

because it's a bullshit criteria that expect people to be 100% perfect and without any flaws whatsoever? Because it doesn't actually interfere with their ability to actually do the job?

So the company who elects this criteria finds themselves at a competitive disadvantage because theyre screening out good employees.

Are you suggesting the government come in and help the company make better hiring decisions?

Should the government also dictate prices? Ad campaigns? Slogans? Web design?

 

[Fenderputty]

So the company who elects this criteria finds themselves at a competitive disadvantage because theyre screening out good employees.

Are you suggesting the government come in and help the company make better hiring decisions?

Should the government also dictate prices? Ad campaigns? Slogans? Web design?

We control base level wages. Not as much as we should as well.

 

[Shosai]

but you still broke the law



You had no hesitation to break the law when you decided to speed. You didn't get caught but you made a poor decision to break the law, so by your logic that makes you unhirable.

It's not entirely analogous, since many people break traffic laws unintentionally or as a result of not paying attention. Using drugs is a much more deliberate decision.

That said, employers already do background checks and refuse to hire people with criminal records for the reasons we're talking about. Drug screenings are an extension of that, along with a desire to reduce the likelihood that an employee will show up to work under the influence.

So the company who elects this criteria finds themselves at a competitive disadvantage because theyre screening out good employees.

Are you suggesting the government come in and help the company make better hiring decisions?

Should the government also dictate prices? Ad campaigns? Slogans? Web design?

A company that refuses to hire blacks or women would also put themselves at a competitive disadvantage, yet we forbid that type of screening. We also give tax breaks to those who hire veterans. Regulating hiring practices isn't without precedent.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Utah will expand Medicare.

This is what gay marriage brings

Better health care, homes of the homeless and clean air
.

Disgusting

 

[AndyD]

So something on the previous page of this thread caused it to be blocked by my firewall. This page is fine. I have been waiting on you all to get to page 18 for half the day, lol.

Was it something interesting?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

because it's a bullshit criteria that expect people to be 100% perfect and without any flaws whatsoever? Because it doesn't actually interfere with their ability to actually do the job? Because it's a way to allow corporate control? Like APK said certain jobs require that and it's fine but for some ungodly large amount of jobs? Complete bullshit.

Pick one.

Is weed smoking even a flaw? It doesn't discriminate between potheads and someone who smoked once in the period the test is testing for.

 

[empty vessel]

It's not entirely analogous, since many people break traffic laws unintentionally or as a result of not paying attention. Using drugs is a much more deliberate decision.

That said, employers already do background checks and refuse to hire people with criminal records for the reasons we're talking about. Drug screenings are an extension of that, along with a desire to reduce the likelihood that an employee will show up to work under the influence.

And generally pay no mind to DUI infractions (unless the job is as a driver) or whether a person drank alcohol--one of the most dangerous drugs--in the last month. Drug testing is largely about enforcing social norms, less about rational hiring policy.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So something on the previous page of this thread caused it to be blocked by my firewall. This page is fine. I have been waiting on you all to get to page 18 for half the day, lol.

Was it something interesting?

Lots and lots of drugs.

 

[jamesinclair]

A company that refuses to hire blacks or women would also put themselves at a competitive disadvantage, yet we forbid that type of screening.

You said it yourself

It's not entirely analogous, since many people break traffic laws unintentionally or as a result of not paying attention. Using drugs is a much more deliberate decision.

Race and sex isnt a deliberate decision.

Spoiler

religion is and shouldnt be protected

O
Sounds like you make poor decisions and you have no hesitation to break the law. Would not hire.

Should we pass a law forcing you to hire me?

We control base level wages. Not as much as we should as well.

Base levels = protected classes

Setting hiring criteria = setting wage levels beyond the minimum

And generally pay no mind to DUI infractions (unless the job is as a driver) or whether a person drank alcohol--one of the most dangerous drugs--in the last month. Drug testing is largely about enforcing social norms, less about rational hiring policy.

I would never hire anyone with a DUI history.

Hell, if it was easy, I wouldnt serve customers with a DUI. They should be sent to a sad little island and stop endangering me and my customers.


Some of you would have the feds force me to hire Justin Bieber.

A DRUG TEST WOULD HAVE SCREENED FOR HIS FLAWS!

 

[Shosai]

And generally pay no mind to DUI infractions (unless the job is as a driver) or whether a person drank alcohol--one of the most dangerous drugs--in the last month. Drug testing is largely about enforcing social norms, less about rational hiring policy.

DUI's are a highly stigmatized part of any personal background check. Maybe not to the extent you would like, but saying that employers "generally pay no mind" is pretty hyperbolic.

 

[Fenderputty]

Ok ... Now I know you're trolling.

Also lol at the idea of people unintentionally speeding.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

RICK PERRY! is for decriminalized pot.

They're be legal pot nationwide by the time Hilliary is out of office

“As governor, I have begun to implement policies that start us toward a decriminalization” by introducing alternative “drug courts” that provide treatment and softer penalties for minor offenses, Perry said during an international panel on drug legalization at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

His spokeswoman confirmed that Perry is staunchly opposed to legalization of marijuana because of the dangers that have been associated with the drug, but is committed to policies that would lower the punishment for its use in order to keep smokers out of jail.

“Legalization is no penalty at all, where as decriminalization doesn't necessarily mean jail time (for minor possession offenses.) It means more of a fine or counseling or some sort of program where you don't end up in jail but in a rehabilitative program,” said Lucy Nashed, a spokeswoman for Perry.

“The goal is to keep people out of jails and reduce recidivism, that kind of thing,” she said, adding that decriminalization excludes violent offenders and dealers.

Rick Perry more progressive than Obama on weed policy

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...p?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_campaign=hootsuite

 

[empty vessel]

Some of you would have the feds force me to hire Justin Bieber.

A DRUG TEST WOULD HAVE SCREENED FOR HIS FLAWS!

And also probably caused you to miss many of the most well-qualified people. Point being, it's probably not a good screen if it is being applied rigidly. I would not reject an applicant who tested positive for marijuana if they were otherwise the best candidate for the job. Surely other criteria would knock out Justin Bieber. The hair alone.

DUI's are a highly stigmatized part of any personal background check. Maybe not to the extent you would like, but saying that employers "generally pay no mind" is pretty hyperbolic.

I don't think so, in terms of it being used to screen out all such candidates as is being proposed (and usually done) with drug testing.

 

[thepotatoman]

Ive been meaning to share this

Ha, "efficiency".

Privatizing doesn't make things efficient, it just puts a very large wall between the the people that want a task completed and the people that are completing it and adds a whole nother layer of evaluations to the process increasing the costs to the government and a bunch of advertising and lobbying costs to the private company (which indirectly leads to further increasing government cost).

And it's not like it's saving the government any money at all, because the government are still going to be paying those new corporation's bills.

If you want more efficiency we should stop wasting money on private companies and spend that on hiring government employees.

 

[jamesinclair]

Strawman.

There are other, more relevant reasons that I wouldn't hire you.

Thats fine. I wouldnt apply to your under-performing business anyway. I like the stability that comes from a drug-free environment.

And also probably caused you to miss many of the most well-qualified people. .

I covered that before. If Im running my business badly, its not on the public to step in and force me to make changes.

Feel free to open a competing business and hire the drug users I passed on.

Thats what America is all about.

 

[theprodigy]

Ok ... Now I know you're trolling.

Also lol at the idea of people unintentionally speeding.

you only figured this out NOW?

 

[Shosai]

Ok ... Now I know you're trolling.

Also lol at the idea of people unintentionally speeding.

What? Sometimes people don't pay attention to their speedometer and go 10 mph over. Or they forget to update their vehicle registration.

They don't "forget" to not buy and consume illegal drugs.

I don't think so, in terms of it being used to screen out all such candidates as is being proposed (and usually done) with drug testing.

Well, now you're moving goalposts. Criminal background checks are more common among employers than drug screenings

 

[jamesinclair]

We're stripping copper wiring and reselling it at inflated prices to the HSR people. Drug users are our top performers!

You did always come off as a sub contractor.

Story checks out.

 

[AndyD]

Hmm. Was there a more specific message?

This Websense category is filtered: Marijuana.

Lol. After seeing this page, i understand why.

you only figured this out NOW?

This whole page reads like two people playing devil's advocate with each other over a scotch.

 

[East Lake]

I feel like I'd have to be high to work for js

 

[WayneMorse]

So there's going to be not one. not two, but THREE responses to the State of the Union this year.

One will be the traditional GOP response from Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), the Tea Party response from Mike Lee and the Rand Paul response from Rand Paul.

BTW Obama is gonna announce he wants to legalize pot in his SOTU.

 

[thezerofire]

Thats fine. I wouldnt apply to your under-performing business anyway. I like the stability that comes from a drug-free environment.

ahahahahahahaha. you do realize that places like Silicon Valley have incredible rates of cannabis use, yet are still extremely successful?

also I can't believe that there are still people peddling that DARE shit. Our last three presidents used cannabis at minimum, obviously they've done something right.

 

[empty vessel]

Well, now you're moving goalposts. Criminal background checks are more common among employers than drug screenings

I don't mean to be moving goalposts. I assume we are talking about screening devices that are rigidly applied. You mentioned businesses who "refuse to hire people with criminal records." I suppose what I was really saying is that businesses by and large don't rigidly apply criminal background checks. They do tend to rigidly apply illegal substance tests.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So there's going to be not one. not two, but THREE responses to the State of the Union this year.

One will be the traditional GOP response from Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), the Tea Party response from Mike Lee and the Rand Paul response from Rand Paul.

BTW Obama is gonna announce he wants to legalize pot in his SOTU.

This would be so awesome. You could easily spin that into the theme of inequality

"the war on drugs has disproportionately affected the poor and by decriminalizing weed and focusing on treatment we will be reducing our prison rolls while increasing our employment rolls and at the same time getting addict the help they need"

Also:

 

[Wilsongt]

So there's going to be not one. not two, but THREE responses to the State of the Union this year.

One will be the traditional GOP response from Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), the Tea Party response from Mike Lee and the Rand Paul response from Rand Paul.

BTW Obama is gonna announce he wants to legalize pot in his SOTU.

Won't be paying attention as usual.

 

[Fenderputty]

What? Sometimes people don't pay attention to their speedometer and go 10 mph over. Or they forget to update their vehicle registration.

They don't "forget" to not buy and consume illegal drugs.

To bring it up in this conversation would be to assume that a decent portion of people caught speeding are just not paying attention rather than intentionally going faster than they're supposed to. Chances are, they knew they were going faster than the law allows.

 

[pigeon]

I do know that the LSD is 'safer' at least in its toxicity than the other two but I don't think it should be sold as its affects are subjective and harder to predict.

But so are the effects of nearly every prescription drug, including plenty of psychoactive substances we're happy to let drug companies hand out with no attention. LSD isn't just safer in its toxicity and dependency qualities than meth and heroin, nor just safer than the benzos and SSRIs we prescribe -- it's safer than Tylenol and aspirin! Let's be real for a moment and admit that the legal restrictions on pharmaceuticals (and, by extension, the drug war) have nothing to do with their actual characteristics and everything to do with regulatory capture by the medical complex. I don't think we should be selling LSD to teenagers, but I don't see any reason informed adults shouldn't have the right to purchase it. The subjective effects are perfectly manageable by a stoned college student -- which isn't necessarily the case about alcohol!

(It's just possible this might be a pet issue of mine.)

I covered that before. If Im running my business badly, its not on the public to step in and force me to make changes.

Sure. But if you're running your business unethically or unconstitutionally, it is. So the question here really is whether drug use should be a protected act which cannot be discriminated against. I'd argue that it should be, under the right to privacy, but there's probably a long list of things before it that need to be addressed first. (Or, of course, we could fix the problem instead of the symptom, and guarantee a basic income so as to provide labor with enough bargaining power to change the conditions at the table.)

That said, I do actually think that companies that don't drug test are going to be more successful overall, for the same reason that all MBA strategies are inherently awful -- people are happier and more productive when they feel as though they're trusted and empowered, and trusting people to use drugs responsibly is a part of that. If you're hiring people who are bad at their jobs because they're irresponsible drug users, you have a problem with your hiring process, because you should be filtering out people who are bad at their jobs, period.

 

[Aaron Strife]

BTW Obama is gonna announce he wants to legalize pot in his SOTU.

Prediction or is that real?

Because if it's real that's amazing.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But so are the effects of nearly every prescription drug, including plenty of psychoactive substances we're happy to let drug companies hand out with no attention. LSD isn't just safer in its toxicity and dependency qualities than meth and heroin, nor just safer than the benzos and SSRIs we prescribe -- it's safer than Tylenol and aspirin! Let's be real for a moment and admit that the legal restrictions on pharmaceuticals (and, by extension, the drug war) have nothing to do with their actual characteristics and everything to do with regulatory capture by the medical complex. I don't think we should be selling LSD to teenagers, but I don't see any reason informed adults shouldn't have the right to purchase it. The subjective effects are perfectly manageable by a stoned college student -- which isn't necessarily the case about alcohol!

(It's just possible this might be a pet issue of mine.)

Maybe its my lack of understanding of the drug but I always assumed it greatly altered your perception in the sense you see things that aren't there, think youre something else, and live our dream things

I perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colors. After some two hours this condition faded away.

That doesn't happen with weed and alcohol.

I don't think we have many legal substances that do that with one dose that we let people do without medical supervision.

 

[Fenderputty]

Maybe its my lack of understanding of the drug but I always assumed it greatly altered your perception in the sense you see things that aren't there, think youre something else, and live our dream things


That doesn't happen with weed and alcohol.

I don't think we have many legal substances that do that with one dose that we let people do without medical supervision.

Why should the drugs affect be considered? I've done plenty and let me tell you alcohol fucks one up more so than LSD. Why Are hallucinations worse than massive loss of inhibition and motor control? If you're basing this purely on the drugs affect cocaine would rank as one of the more benign.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Christie should have been Jupiter

 

[Sibylus]

This is really great to hear.

Another Blow To the Iran Sanctions Bill



and

It's Getting Easier to Vote Against Iran Sanctions


I pretty much pulled this verbatim from this Andrew Sullivan post just now, but really great news. Seems sanity might win out.

Some good news while my PM is handing out embarrassing speeches in Israel and earning the praises of Palin (ugh).

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

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



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

It's False Equivilency Time!

I'm not pro drug testing, but this is a pretty dumb counter-argument.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Maybe its my lack of understanding of the drug but I always assumed it greatly altered your perception in the sense you see things that aren't there, think youre something else, and live our dream things


That doesn't happen with weed and alcohol.

I don't think we have many legal substances that do that with one dose that we let people do without medical supervision.

Short term psychosis-like symptoms can indeed be the product of alcohol and especially heavy doses of marijuana esp. if ingested.

LSD is just as safe as SSRI's, sleep aids (ambien, lunesta) and a lot of drugs in terms of organ toxicity, but that's not to say that we should allow the unregulated sale of them.

And LSD was introduced into the states by a pharmaceutical company Sandoz, for its applications in psychiatry. It was given to researchers free of charge for about two decades.

Really sucks because anti-depressant research would have probably been farther ahead than it is now. We are barely getting back to researching drugs like LSD and ketamine for short-acting anti-depressants that might be used for extremely suicidal patients.

Acute Toxicity

LSD is very safe in the sense that there have been few, if any, documented cases of death from overdose. Some of the other psychedelic agents, notably phenylethylamines, are less safe. For example, there have been a small number of highly publicized deaths from Ecstasy overdose (see Chapter 21). LSD can induce an acute panic reaction in inexperienced users, which lasts for a few hours. More serious is the ability of these drugs to induce a toxic psychosis resembling paranoid schizophrenia, including thought disorder, auditory hallucinations, aggressive behavior, and paranoid delusions. In some cases, this psychosis can persist for several weeks and requires hospital treatment. Users of LSD may also experience “flashbacks”—sudden recurrences of illusions and other phenomena experienced under the drug; these can occur unpredictably even weeks or months after the last dose.

Long-Term Effects

As was the case for cannabis, the use of psychedelic drugs roused storms of emotion and irrationality among those who believed that such drugs might ruin the lives of a generation of young people. Cannabis was claimed to interfere with sex hormones and lead to sterility. Similarly, LSD was alleged to accelerate breaks and gaps in human chromosomes, thus possibly damaging the germ cells on which future generations depend or causing cancer in drug users. Few poorer examples of experimental technique or scientific argument could be imagined; the methods were fraught with artifacts and the results impossible to interpret. Nevertheless, such claims raised a storm of controversy in the 1960s and 1970s until finally put to rest.

Iversen, Leslie; Iversen, Susan; Bloom, Floyd E.; Roth, Robert H. (2008-11-10). Introduction to Neuropsychopharmacology (Kindle Locations 8828-8841). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[Fenderputty]

It's False Equivilency Time!

I'm not pro drug testing, but this is a pretty dumb counter-argument.

Can you clarify why you feel it's a false equivalency? Or are you just gonna act like a pompous dick?

 

[WayneMorse]

Prediction or is that real?

Because if it's real that's amazing.

Prediction. Though he did kind of hint at something when he said pot was no more dangerous than alcohol.

Also over his vacation in Hawaii he met up with his old pot smoking buddies, the Chum gang, so I'd be surprised if he hasn't contemplated the issue.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Your Schadenfreude For The Day:

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/...ster-proof-democratic-majority-in-the-senate/

How many constitutes “enough”? Well, after running several thousand simulations of the 2016 Senate elections, Trende finds it’s more likely than not that Democrats will win four seats that year. Which means, to give themselves a fair shot at holding the chamber into 2017, the GOP would need to win 10 seats this year, creating a temporary 55/45 advantage. Is that possible? Actually, yes — depending upon how dismal Obama’s job approval is this November. If it’s still stuck in the 40-43 percent range, a Democratic bloodbath on election day is a distinct possibility. And what if O’s job approval rebounds and the GOP performs much worse than expected? Then it’s … hard-liquor time:

Read how a conservative going through the data realizes and 2014 conservative victory will be a pyrrhic one

Prediction. Though he did kind of hint at something when he said pot was no more dangerous than alcohol.

Also over his vacation in Hawaii he met up with his old pot smoking buddies, the Chum gang, so I'd be surprised if he hasn't contemplated the issue.

He'll say something. It does seem to be hint dropping and the president has been hinting he'll focus a lot on things HE can do rather than calling for congressional action. Holder said this today too:

The Attorney-General also addressed Obama’s recent comments on marijuana.

“I think the positions that we’re taking – in terms of setting up those eight priorities that would warrant federal intervention – are consistent with what the President said,” Holder stated, referencing 2012 guidelines that leaned away from prosecuting private use.

“Small time-small amount marijuana cases are not the kinds of things that deserve to be in the federal system,” Holder said. “When violence is part of the dissemination of marijuana,” he added, “those are the kinds of cases that should be in federal system, and those are the changes we’ve made.”

Watch Hillary or Biden say something tomorrow or Monday and Obama call for it Tuesday night

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Can you clarify why you feel it's a false equivalency? Or are you just gonna act like a pompous dick?

Because speeding is a minor fine, does not go on your criminal record, and can easily be done by mistake? Whereas drug use is a misdemeanor or greater, requires a conscious choice, has a social stigma attached to it beyond the legal repercussions?

Might as well compare drug use to jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk while you are at it.

As I said, I oppose drug testing, and I happen to support legalization of pot and decriminalization of other drugs. But until that happens, being a drug user does show a willingness to break the law and take risks (and presumably interact with others who do as well, unless you make your own) well beyond speeding.

I can't believe I have to spell this out.

 

[WayneMorse]

He'll say something. It does seem to be hint dropping and the president has been hinting he'll focus a lot on things HE can do rather than calling for congressional action. Holder said this today too:

I think he can get congressional action on pot legalization, there's still a strong libertarian wing of the Tea Party with people like Justin Amash who would be open to decriminalization, same with Rand Paul.

 

[Fenderputty]

Because speeding is a minor fine, does not go on your criminal record, and can easily be done by mistake? Whereas drug use is a misdemeanor or greater, requires a conscious choice, has a social stigma attached to it beyond the legal repercussions?

Might as well compare drug use to jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk while you are at it.

As I said, I oppose drug testing, and I happen to support legalization of pot and decriminalization of other drugs. But until that happens, being a drug user does show a willingness to break the law and take risks (and presumably interact with others who do as well, unless you make your own) well beyond speeding.

I can't believe I have to spell this out.

It's still breaking the law, and mostly done intentionally. He specifically said, "shows willingness to break the law."

If you want to turn this into a moral question about which laws are OK to break we can, but that doesn't have much to do with James' comment.

In addition, it is possible for someone to be slipped something. It is possible, though high unlikely, for someone to have trace amounts of THC in their system after being around heavy smokers . Think Bob Marley festival.

 

[WayneMorse]

Also legalizing pot will probably inadvertently cause an economic boom so there's that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think he can get congressional action on pot legalization, there's still a strong libertarian wing of the Tea Party with people like Justin Amash who would be open to decriminalization, same with Rand Paul.

No.

Also legalizing pot will probably inadvertently cause an economic boom so there's that.

No. To this as well. Pot is already a part of the economy. Do you think drug dealers don't spend their money? It will reduce the social cost of the drug war but you're not going to see the economy 'boom'

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It's still breaking the law, and mostly done intentionally. He specifically said, "shows willingness to break the law."

If you want to turn this into a moral question about which laws are OK to break we can, but that doesn't have much to do with James' comment.

In addition, it is possible for someone to be slipped something. It is possible, though high unlikely, for someone to have trace amounts of THC in their system after being around heavy smokers . Think Bob Marley festival.

Actually, it was me who said that. And I stand by it, as not all laws carry equal weight or risk, and I do think that willingness to risk a misdemeanor or felony is worse than committing a moving violation with no criminal component. Hence it was a false equivilency on your part to compare the two.

I wouldn't not hire somebody for it, but I can understand why somebody else might not.


If it clarifies things, change my original statement to willingness to commit a misdemeanor.