And I said before, I understand the issue of privacy. I don’t understand a “casual user” risking losing his job over a “weekend joint”.
No, you’re not. I can understand “freedom of speech” (the kid’s web page) and I can understand the idea of fighting against censorship in a library. And, I understand fighting against invasion of privacy. What I don’t understand is someone risking their job, and their freedom for a joint, a buzz, or a high. It must be damned important for them to get high, then. I guess you don’t know (or are unwilling to provide) the answer for that. I don’t believe (for a second!) that they are getting high to “prove a point”. They are getting high because they like it.
But I think the rest of us may assume a few things from this. That for some people, getting high is more important than job security (if they take a job where drug testing occurs.) And some of us will not have a high regard for such a person.
I think we agree about people using drugs in a situation where they might be caught.
Personally, I don’t know anyone who has had to take a drug test, but I assume a rational person would take precautions against being caught. Not necessarily using his kid’s urine, but abstaining for a week or two before a test, or choosing a job that doesn’t test. I know that I’d walk out of an interview if they mentioned testing at all, but especially if I thought I might test positive.
My guess is that chemicals intended to let you pass a drug test are marketed towards the more inept people who can’t plan ahead, like auto title loans, and that an average drug user would never need such a thing because he wouldn’t take the risk of having to pass an unexpected test - or if he uses them, it’s because he knows from experience that they work reliably.
First of all you are assuming that I break the speed limit…which I very rarely do. And certainly not with my children in the car, very value cargo you know. Or that I make tapes? I never tape anything, not movies or cassettes. So what’s your point? Why must we keep going back to silly arguements about speeding tickets and such? There’s no comparison. If you can justify smoking pot around your kids by using some inane reference to going 5 miles over the speed limit, then go ahead. But there is no justification for one because you engage in the other. There is also an increased degree of harm. Come up with a better excuse, I don’t think you can. There isn’t one.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I trying to ask if you thought a hypothetical person would be “passively using” his children by speeding with them in the car or copying a tape for them.
You are implying that smoking pot is universally accepted as something that needs an extraordinary justification.
Maybe you believe in this increased degree of harm as something that can be accepted without proof, but I don’t.
Fortunately, my self-esteem isn’t so low that I consider my argument to be “shot down” by this quip…
Medea’s Child:
First, the post I replied to was claiming that merely smoking pot in front of your kids was “passively using” them:
Second, your analogy doesn’t even apply to the OP. People who fail a drug test don’t say “I don’t use drugs, my kid does!”
The OP is about substituting clean urine for your own in order to pass a test - specifically, your child’s urine. I believe I’ve already stated my position on that.