What is the world coming to?

[Minerva]

As far as I am concerned there is nothing in this thread that warrants a lock. I find it interesting myself. I've seen threads with 0 substance that are still alive.

[-IRC-MIKE]

I never said that he was endangering his kids. You assumed it, and that is your mistake... I forgive you. I used to go play cards every payday with a few buddies and one of them smoked weed. It got to the point to where I got a contact high but the person hosting the card game didn't smoke but didn't say anything about it. Rather than risk failing a random drug test I quit going to the card game.

I don't know what gives you the impression that I am "griping" about anything. I personally think it is funny how some people here will...how should I put this ....well let me quote what a really good friend of mine once told me:

"I have more respect for the people who actualize themselves than for the douchebags who piss around the topic in an effort to deflect from themselves."


So let me get this straight.. now be honest. If you went over to this buddy's house right this moment and had a big fatty rolled up... and you offered to "fire it up" while his kids were distracted .. he would turn it down.

P.S. Thank you Minerva. It is good to see someone else interested in a civil, adult conversation instead of immature slinging of mud.

[GeneralSnake]

You know...I don't think anyone is going to agree and it seems like we're just rehashing the same thing over and over now....might be smart if someone locks this.

I dont think the point when we first started was to change each others views on the subject, just to discuss it, but we are just arguing now.
And with the same points over and over on both sides, in slightly different words.

[Evil_T0NY {CLR}]

These are all good things for businesses to have, but asking silly questions with obvious answers doesn't do any good.

It does the employer some good.

[Thrashdragon]

It does the employer some good.

It doesn't improve the quality or trustworthiness of their staff in any way, unless they're hiring people too stupid to figure out the obvious answers. But hey, whatever helps them sleep at night.

[BigTwinky]

These are all good things for businesses to have, but asking silly questions with obvious answers doesn't do any good.

As a ?human resources idiot?, we are moving away from stupid questions with obvious answers, at least here in Canada. They don?t prove a thing, they are a thing of the past that may of used to work 20 years ago but no longer yield much real information about your candidate. Anyone who is not able to answer those questions properly doesn?t deserve the job in the first place?that?s all that the test really proves. A real psych exam is different.

We are actually moving away from Reference checking as well. We no longer accept any personal references, only professional, and we are starting to think that even those aren?t worth the time it takes.

Those are things in the recruitment process that can be fixed or arranged ahead of time to ensure the best answer possible. And it kinda defeats the purpose of trying to find the right candidate when the reference material is easily rigged.

A company can ask whatever questions they want. But its how they use these questions in the screening process. Questions like the ones posted by Tony are pretty pointless.

Background checks, criminal checks, credit checks, request for the last 3 performance evaluations are much more effective tools to get a real picture of how things are.

And proven psychological exams, done by external / qualified firms, can lend some insight on the candidate. But they are expensive to administer and usually only done for high profile, highly sensitive positions.

[BigTwinky]

As for the drinking vs smoking up when you have kids around...to me, they are the same thing. Its not an issue of the substance in question, its an issue of the responsibility one should have when children around, end of story. Pot, alchohol, video games (some people do have serious addictions to games that very negatively affect their family life and in some cases, well being), whatever...

If you are to assume that someone who smokes up with a kid around smokes up all the time, then you also assume that the person who drinks a 6 pack with a kid around drinks all the time. Same difference. And they are both assumptions, nothing more.

Again, not a substance issue, but a parenting / responsibility issue.

Same goes for on the job... if I go out at lunch and drink a couple of pitchers of beer and come back intoxicated, I am just as irresponsible and stupid as if I would go out and smoke a joint and come back high. NEITHER should be done.

I don't think I have read ANY post here from anyone saying that you should be able to smoke pot any and every time you want, without repercussions. What I have read is that it should be treated the same as alcohol. Needs to be done responsibly, else you are a douchebag.

No drink and drive = no smoke and drive
No drink at work = no smoke at work
No drink with kids = no smoke with kids
Don't drink to excess = don't smoke to excess

I have not read any argument yet as to why pot should not be legalized and treated the same way alchohol is. At least, nothing convincing in my eyes.

All I have read about it issues with pot as its bad if you smoke at work or smoke with kids or smoke too much or having teens smoke it. All of which are the same as if you abused alchohol.

[BigTwinky]

Generally speaking, if a person would smoke while their kids are home with them, alone, then they are probably not the type of person who only smoke "once in a while". My brother-in-law got busted selling pot. He sold it for 20 years. He also smoked it on a regular basis, hid it from his kids, and would scold them if they came outside while he was smoking and tell them to go back inside. That makes him a douchebag. His kid only wanted to come be with his father.

I like this paragraph.

Getting busted for selling it is not relevant to the discussion as we know its illegal and he got caught selling something illegally. If it would be legal, this wouldn’t be an issue.

Your brother in law sounds like a hypocrite and not a very good parent.

But generally speaking, if he would drink to get drunk while his kids were home, alone, he probably wouldn’t be the type of person who only drinks socially and has a glass of wine at dinner with friends or a cold beer after a hard day of working in the yard. If he drank a good deal regularly, hid the drinking from his wife and kids, would scold them should they come to him when he was drunk or in the process of getting drunk, yell at them to get inside, he would have just as much of a problem (these people have problems and need to be helped, not just finger pointed and called douchebags).

And generally speaking, if he would always play WoW when his kids were home, not paying them any attention at all, he probably would be the type of person who always plays WoW and not just once and a while…a WoW addict. If he played WoW a good deal when he had friends and family over, often playing until 4am even if he has to be up in a few hours for work, scolds his kids for interrupting his WoW time or sucking up some bandwidth and making him lag during his Molten Core run, doesn’t spend quality time with his family anymore as he is addicted to the game, he has a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

[Thrashdragon]

Background checks, criminal checks, credit checks, request for the last 3 performance evaluations are much more effective tools to get a real picture of how things are.

Agreed. It's amazing how many people a simple criminal background check will weed out...and even more amazing how few companies bother to run one. Credit checks...I personally don't agree with this one (I guess it depends on how they use the data), but I can understand where employers are coming from when they run one.

[Hammy]

As a ?human resources idiot?, we are moving away from stupid questions with obvious answers, at least here in Canada. They don?t prove a thing, they are a thing of the past that may of used to work 20 years ago but no longer yield much real information about your candidate. Anyone who is not able to answer those questions properly doesn?t deserve the job in the first place?that?s all that the test really proves. A real psych exam is different.

We are actually moving away from Reference checking as well. We no longer accept any personal references, only professional, and we are starting to think that even those aren?t worth the time it takes.

Those are things in the recruitment process that can be fixed or arranged ahead of time to ensure the best answer possible. And it kinda defeats the purpose of trying to find the right candidate when the reference material is easily rigged.

A company can ask whatever questions they want. But its how they use these questions in the screening process. Questions like the ones posted by Tony are pretty pointless.

Background checks, criminal checks, credit checks, request for the last 3 performance evaluations are much more effective tools to get a real picture of how things are.

And proven psychological exams, done by external / qualified firms, can lend some insight on the candidate. But they are expensive to administer and usually only done for high profile, highly sensitive positions.

Lets go back to what I said a few posts back about the legal ramifications of ambiguity -

A direct question that has context which can be interpreted, where interpreted means that one must conclude in such a way that will rely on opinion, will always be subject to greater scrutiny.

"Do you smoke marijuana" is not an ambiguous question. It's not asking you when, how, how much, who else, where, and etc.

But as Big T points out here, there are questions out there that are simply corporate safety nets to cover aspects of the business climate that they can never control.

As Evil T points out, if they want to ask, and you don't want to answer, they don't have to consider you for the position in that same spirit of objection. And Big T just agreed with him as well.

The nut of the entire corporate questioning is: for whose protection are these questions being asked, and in what ways can said questions be used as a tool. Does any of these tools resemble a weapon. If yes, time to move on and back away from the process. Just because you are trying to share your honest opinion that you do not support, condone, or participate in illicit drug use- does not guarantee that this is the interpretation they will recieve or use in future dealings with you.

In the same sense for all things being considered here, what we are really talking about here is this:

Just how far can support or moral objection go for a drug like marijuana?

The answer: pretty far. You can support it all you want, and you can do so in the privacy of your own home. You can object all you want, and simply avoid the people that do and report anyone around you who partakes to the authorities.

In the end, however, it is still a difference between supporting your community of rules and laws versus being the type of person who picks and chooses which laws apply to you and which ones do not. Do not mistake the fact that if you are the latter of my example then you are in fact not a law abiding citizen. It is a fact.

It is also a fact that those same people who complain about the marijuana law because it isnt convenient to their needs are no better than those people who complain about things such companies that don't comply with environmental laws. It is no more convenient for those corporations to comply with the law than it is for participants and those in toleration to comply with laws regarding marijuana.

You aren't "kinda" a law abiding citizen. Either you are or you aren't. What we often find is that compromises in Laws, such as examples found throughout this discussion, are not confined to just this one law, nor is it confined to this one moral objection if you want to take it there as well.

Compromise enables additional compromises, and is such the core reason why Marijuana is considered a gateway drug- JUST like alcohol, cigarrettes, and etc.

[BigTwinky]

I totally agree. If you are smoking pot, you are breaking the law today. End of story.

However, what is being discussed is if this law should exist. Were there not laws decades ago that prevented people in Ohio from shaving past 4:00pm? (I did read something similar to this a while back). The point is that times change and our society and our laws need to adapt.

[Thrashdragon]

That's an interesting perspective, AH, and while your definition of "law-abiding citizen" is technically true, most of us live in shades of gray. If you're driving in a 45mph zone, do you REALLY do 45 or under? No, you do 50 (at least), partially in order to keep up with traffic, and partially because you know that A: you can probably get away with it, B: if you get caught, the penalty is annoying but hardly more than an inconvenience, and C: it doesn't trip any ingrained moral triggers as a "bad" behavior. But using your perspective that makes pretty much everyone behind the wheel of a car a bad person.

And that's why I think pot use in otherwise law-abiding adults is so prevalent. Sure, it's against the law. But all of us see laws being flouted with impunity every day. Breaking this law doesn't hurt anyone, and there's nothing deep in your brain that tells you this is "bad", because it's not any worse, and in some ways is actually better, than drinking alcohol...which is socially accepted to the point that someone that refrains from drinking in social situations is actually viewed as an outcast.

I broke the law just this morning. In Florida there's an old law on the books that makes it illegal to shower naked.

[Hammy]

I hear you on the speeding in question.
But the problem I have with it, is that there are people like me who don't speed unless we are legally authorized to do so.
My relationships doesnt give me any freebees, in fact out here, officers are incented to check each other in regards to speeding.
My incentive has been the cost of time + money + insurance rates + repair/replacement of my vehicles + wear and tear on my cars.
My weekend warrior status has only been recent in law enforcement, so the badge doesnt help me at all.

10+ years without a moving violation, 14+ without an accident.
I've been in 5 accidents and none of them have been my fault.
I quit speeding and I stopped getting tickets
I quit speeding and I stopped getting hit by idiots who blew out stop signs or did the coasting right through the light as I pulled the Legal U on Green.
I think my experiment has proven well and I have the cheapest car insurance out of ANYONE I know.

Sorry to say this, but if you were to drive 2-4 mph under the speed limit for two weeks, you'd notice a fair number of cars doing the speed limit or less. I'll draw reference to my early comments about the perception that many people smoke pot. Same situation- majority does not speed, majority does not smoke marijuana.

[Evil_T0NY {CLR}]

As a ?human resources idiot?, we are moving away from stupid questions with obvious answers, at least here in Canada. They don?t prove a thing, they are a thing of the past that may of used to work 20 years ago but no longer yield much real information about your candidate. Anyone who is not able to answer those questions properly doesn?t deserve the job in the first place?that?s all that the test really proves. A real psych exam is different.

We are actually moving away from Reference checking as well. We no longer accept any personal references, only professional, and we are starting to think that even those aren?t worth the time it takes.

Those are things in the recruitment process that can be fixed or arranged ahead of time to ensure the best answer possible. And it kinda defeats the purpose of trying to find the right candidate when the reference material is easily rigged.

A company can ask whatever questions they want. But its how they use these questions in the screening process. Questions like the ones posted by Tony are pretty pointless.

Background checks, criminal checks, credit checks, request for the last 3 performance evaluations are much more effective tools to get a real picture of how things are.

And proven psychological exams, done by external / qualified firms, can lend some insight on the candidate. But they are expensive to administer and usually only done for high profile, highly sensitive positions.

Twinky...I kind of agree with you on those line of questioning.

Because some of those questions (other than the drug related ones) , think "it depends" as an answer.

Like the question, "Everyone, at one time, has called in sick, even though they weren't".

Or, "Ever stole any money from the bosses desk". stuff like that. Ethical questions.

I answered "No", but really it's "No not everyone does it"

And I figured, they might think "dang this guy is a goody goody, he doesn't lie, he doesn't steal, doesn't do drugs....either he's lying or its un natural"

So there's an argument from the OTHERside of the board.

I thought it was "Inhuman Resources" lol Personally, across the board, I think HR isn't all that useful in some circumstances.

I remember HR attempting to sway us to vote "No" to Unionization.

[-IRC-MIKE]

I like this paragraph.

Getting busted for selling it is not relevant to the discussion as we know its illegal and he got caught selling something illegally. If it would be legal, this wouldn’t be an issue.

Your brother in law sounds like a hypocrite and not a very good parent.

First of all, it is completely relevant because I have made it that way. Other than the time he was smoking, he was a totally good parent... The point of bringing this into the equation is simply parallel to what others have stated which is this:

Other than smoking weed, neglecting his children so that he could smoke weed, driving around with it in his vehicle, and selling it by the pound, he was a law abiding citizen.

The ironic part of it: Now that he has cleaned his act up and doesn't drink or do drugs, he cannot believe that he'd be so stupid as to drive around with marijuana in the vehicle while transporting his family on vacation. He said that he did not realize the risks that he had taken by doing things that could have severe consequences. That, my friends, is one of the side effects. But like you said.. legalizing it would remove this risk from the equation.

Then you bring up the biggest point of all,

we know its illegal and he got caught selling something illegally

Exactly!