and move to Peru apparently: You can't fire me, I'm drunk! | Oddly Enough | Reuters Now, being the man was a janitor his intoxication probably wasn't that big a deal and termination may have been a bit overboard. However, I don't like the precedent this ruling may set for other government jobs in the nation.
Hopefully, there's anappeal process wherein this jackass judge will get his decision overturned. brndrt is right, this does set a very dangerous precedent. When some idiot tells me pot should be legalized, I bring up an example of an airline pilot wanting to drag on a fatty before getting the plane off the runway.
By that reasoning, would you also ban alcohol? Note that I am not arguing in favor of legalizing marijuana. Rather, I am exploring why it should be treated differently than alcohol.
1) I know there are a lot of people, including my mother who need alcohol every single day. I also know that prohibition was a gigantic failure. 2) I know, by experience, that it is far easier to prove someone guilty of murder than it is to prove them guilty of DUI. Proving DUI is extremely difficult as judges and juries seem to bend over backwards to give the drunk driver the benefit of the doubt, unless a fatality is involved-in which case a jury pays attention. 3) I had a high school roomate who was so brilliant that he finished his senior thesis (5,000 words) in fifteen minutes, and he got an A on it. He was also madly in love with pot, so much so that he was convinced that the US President got high every evening. When he graduated with high honors (and I had a 2.5 GPA), he rubbed my nose in it, saying:"See, a pothead can succeed." Five years later he dropped off the face of the earth. 4) I know that pot can be as destructive as alcohol-when abused. I have a low tolerance level for those who need to go through life impaired. I strongly feel that those caught in possession-while operating a vehicle, or while infringing on others should be prosecuted to the maximum extent. I use the pilot example to see if a pothead really would want to be in a plane operated by someone under the influence. 5) Because I know some people just have to be high (or drunk) every day, I say "Let em". They just have to comply with the following restrictions: A) Turn in their driver's license and get a state issued i.d. with a large A on it. B) They can never operate a car, plane, or anything with a motor. C) They are restricted from a number of employment opportunities. in return, they can't be arrested, except for selling their product.
I strongly disagree with your measures. They are discriminatory and would end in disgrace. People would just keep consuming without registering. Plus, you don't differentiate between the "sometimes user" and the addict. Anyway, I feel that legalization to some extent is way better. Cheers...
