I refer to this recent story: http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/04/23/little-spider-creations-marijuana-employees/26241529/
Apparently, the employer was so fed up with the potheads, that he up and moved his business to SC. This is a very interesting argument to me as I feel that most potheads are slow, but highly creative.
Obviously, this is a personal observation, but I think it bears merit.
For instance, did you know that Mary Jane was legal in the US until Roosevelt? I reckon the crux of the problem is folks not knowin how they may remain functional while passin the peace pipe. Believe it or not, functional stoners and alcoholics do amazing things! I think the keyword is functional.
I am of the opinion that an employer should have the freedom to up and go if they’re dealing with half-baked talentless folks.
At the same time, I’m very much for keeping the functional ones with talent around a bit! (Call me an enabler, I don’t care.)
I can assure you that I, as a general contractor, certainly had more than 90% pot-heads as employees. There was always talk about drug testing and such…………………. If I had required my workers to be clean, I would never have had enough men to get anything done. And I would guess that 100% of them were drinkers.
So it really boils down to production, right? I mean, the capability of one, with regard to what they’re good at, is sort of an amalgamation of what makes them overall good in a sense, don’t you think?
Geez! I’m not trying to sound like HippiesRUs, Flowerchild Inc., but I just know some very successful people with vices…..
I guess what I was saying was that in the construction field, at least in PC, there is NO PRODUCTION, if you require the producers to be clean.
From your post quote “… I don’t care.”
I know you don’t, and I have always appreciated your deep honesty ….. honestly !!
Here’s a Church for you. Steny Hoyer’s… “Church of whatever makes you Happy”.
S’all good cause I’m sure they’re “talented” :
http://godfatherpolitics.com/21966/democrat-congressman-argues-god-says-you-can-marry-your-dog-if-it-makes-you-happy/
Well, that is where I do care. A dog is as innocent as a minor; therefore, not consenting.
How quaint. A Libertarian attempt at “Morality”.
The selective self-interest approach is just so precious , n’est pas ?
I would deem it logical over selective as a minor has about as much wherewithal than a dog.
Liberal-Tarianism is just so Special….exhibiting more specialness than the rest of us in fact.