Hey, no problem. I was just unaware that we were making different arguments.
When you called something a “bad law,” i assumed you were basing your argument on some rational calculation of what was best for society, or in the best interests of public policy. If i had known that your position was based on nothing more than selfishness or occupational insecurity, i wouldn’t have even bothered trying to argue with you.
I’ll keep your position in mind from now on whenever i read your arguments about law and policy. Thanks for the heads up.
Um, so you charge an assload of money before you will even describe the services you perform? Sounds like a great business model. Is your real name Dogbert? Is your target market the stupid?
This is typical of prohibitionists. When the facts are inconvenient, call names or be a smartass. Maybe you can tell me this, since it isn’t related to your fabulous business. Does it give you a warm happy feeling inside when you read stories like this? It would go a long way toward explaining your viewpoint.
As I expected, that limits only employers in California. Thus, if you were to move to another state, you would potentially end up having the conviction a part of the application process.
I’ll ignore the silly byplay going on over whether that is a good law or not.
Another piece of the puzzle is your age (forgive me if it’s in a post and I didn’t catch it). I’m one of the people that these background checks are done for. While I’m willing to overlook some youthful behavior, and pot conviction when you are in your mid to late 20’s and beyond just isn’t going to fly. Without getting into a discussion of whether of not it should be legal, the reality is it’s not legal right now. And you were/would be willing to live in an environment where illegal behavior is going on in a day-to-day basis. What will that say about your conduct on the job? “I know that embezzlement is illegal, but I don’t think it’s that bad?” “I know sexual harassment is against company policy, but I know better what the rules should be, so what the hell.” Bottom line is for most jobs you’ll be looking at, you will frequently be one of many or several looking for the same position. If you are the only one with a pot conviction, how do you think you’ll fare? For me, and our organization, it just comes down to judgment. And most employers will - at the very least - believe you used very bad judgment living with at bunch of drug users.
And as others have pointed out, pot smell is very distinctive. So virtually everyone you come in contact with will smell pot. They’ll just assume you are a user, and won’t invite you to some lengthy debate on the merits of legalization, they’ll just assume you smoke. And I’m guessing that if you didn’t have some issue with pot, you’d be smoking already.
You know, i understand at one level why companies want to avoid the possible hassles associated with such convictions. Legal liability, a desire to be above reproach with all possible constituencies, etc., etc. Fair enough.
But do you really believe that there is equivalence in the things you’ve listed here? Do you really believe that a pot smoker is, by virtue of flouting the law on that one issue, likely to demonstrate a blanket contempt for laws and rules? And do you really need someone to explain to you the difference between breaking a law when you’re the only person affected by your actions (smoking pot) and breaking a law in a way that infringes on the property and the liberties of others (embezzling someone else’s money; making unwanted sexual advances on someone else) ?
I know plenty of thirty year olds who smoke pot on a regular basis, who hold down responsible jobs, and who would never dream of committing a crime like embezzlement or sexual harassment. As i said, if you want to exclude people with pot convictions, that’s your choice, but it’s rather irrational, not to say disingenuous, to make the sort of extrapolation that you’re making here.
My company isn’t looking to avoid any legal liability. It wants effective, productive, dependable employees. And if all else was equal, my employer, and most others I’d think, would take a non-pot smoking employee over a pot smoking one. And as I stated earlier, someone with a pot conviction or drug testing their 30s would definitely be in trouble. I know you don’t like it but that’s the way it is. Maybe Red is so good at whatever it is that he does that a potential future employers wouldn’t care what he did. Then I guess it doesn’t matter.
Yes I do. I think flouting the law (your term) in one area, makes one more likely to “flout” the law in other areas. Especially when you are “flouting” one law each and every day.
I'm able to think on my own and know the difference between right and wrong, thanks for the offer though. But you are not the only one effected by your drug use. This nation spends billions of dollars attempting to prevent pot smoking. And billions incarcerating those that use it and deal drugs. And by definition, much (all perhaps?) of the money spend on procuring pot goes to criminals. (No, not all to hard core Columbian drug cartels I'm sure.) And like it or not, a majority or our nations law makers support this spending.
Additionally, one of the reasons we live in the land of plenty here in the US, is that we are one of the most productive counties in the world. Behaviors that effects that productivity effects me, as do the costs listed above. So your pot use, does, indirectly, effect the quality of my life.
And I know some 30 years olds that are doing the same things they were doing when the they were 18 - sitting around, not doing a hell of a lot. Was the pot the cause of the or the effect? I don’t know. Neither do you.
The people that you associate with, don't think it’s any big deal that you smoke pot and you're in your 30's. I'm glad that things are working out well for you (honestly). But Red posted a question asking about the dangers of being a roommate with people who smoke pot. And like it or not, a majority or employers, if given the choice between two potential employers, one who smokes pot and one who does not (or one with a drug conviction and on without one) would chose the non-smoker, hands down I believe. He asked about the dangers, and I'm pointing one out - period. We all have to do cost-benefit analysis of situations we encounter each and every day. Is the benefit of saving a couple of hundred dollars a month worth the bother, potential trouble with the law, or in my example, employment trouble? Only Red knows the answer for him. I'm trying to help him flesh them out.
I can see that this subject is more important to you than it is to me, so I’ll let you have the last word.
Do you have any evidence of correlation, or is this just a feeling you get?
This is priceless!
You take the laws against smoking marijuana, and use them to justify an argument that smoking marijuana affects other people besides the smoker. It’s a perfect circular argument.
“You shouldn’t smoke marijuana because it’s against the law.”
“But i’m not affecting anyone else by smoking marijuana.”
“Yes you are. Your smoking marijuana does affect other people because we’ve passed laws ensuring this is the case.”
The difference, which you either don’t understand or deliberately avoided, is that marijuana smoking, in and of itself, need not affect anyone except the user. Embezzlement (essentially, theft) and sexual harassment, by definition and intrinsically, have an effect on other people, and involve depriving other people of their property or their liberty. The monly reason marijuana has direct effects on anyone except the user is that our laws make sure of it.
I’m literally slapping my thighs now. This is really what you’re resting your argument on? Just out of interest, how much productivity do you think is lost each year to marijuana use compared with, say, employees using the internet to play on message boards or shop on company time?
Actually, if you had read my argument, you would note that i never said that i smoke pot.
I’m in my late 30s and, at the risk of appearing terribly uncool to some people, am perfectly happy to admit that i’ve never smoked pot in my life. Note that i’m not saying that i’ve never been a habitual user, or that i’ve never been a social pot smoker. I’m saying that i have never taken a single puff of a joint or a bong. Ever. It just doesn’t interest me very much.
This issue is only of any importance to me whatsoever in that i get rather depressed that so many people are willing to let emotion and antiquated moralizing take the place of reason and logic when it comes to the issue of marijuana use in America. You are right that the majority of our lawmakers support this stance, which is, in my view, even more depressing. The fact that California has at least partly woken up from this Puritanical stupor is, at least, cause for optimism.
I only do it on the side.