gosh a ruddies so you would fire someone whose doctor had them use marijuana to treat a medical condition

Well "the boss" has spoken.

(Which I realize is his right, of course)

Don't worry, boss, the way it was worded on the ballot will defeat it.

superman;1760474 wrote:So you're going to fire them for doing something that's legal? Hope you have a good lawyer.

He will not need a lawyer. My 20yr old son was fired for using tobacco. As a condition of employment my son stated he was not a tobacco user. He started to use it again occasionally after employment and was caught when injured at work and tested positive for nicotine.

superman;1760474 wrote:So you're going to fire them for doing something that's legal? Hope you have a good lawyer.

Where do you get the idea that an employer can't prohibit employees from participating in legal activities? This is in particular settled law in Ohio in regard to smoking cigarettes (not only can I ban it on my property, I can tell the employee that he can't smoke anywhere). More generally, the idea that an employer is slave to the legal is an absurd premise. Renting a billboard calling your boss an asshole is not only legal, it's constitutionally protected. But you'll be fired, almost certainly for cause.

dontcare;1760473 wrote:I had a nice meeting with my employees this morning. Told them if issue 3 passes, I will make them randomly take a drug test whenever I want. It they refuse, they are fired, if they test positive for marijuana, they are fired. None of them had an issue with that. Happy voting folks.

And if I was your employee I would quit.

sleeper;1760497 wrote:And if I was your employee I would quit.

Actually, if he used those exact words, he could well have a problem. A random test must indeed be random.

queencitybuckeye;1760500 wrote:Actually, if he used those exact words, he could well have a problem. A random test must indeed be random.

This is true. Basing "random" drug testing on the outcome of a vote no longer makes it random.

majorspark;1760508 wrote:This is true. Basing "random" drug testing on the outcome of a vote no longer makes it random.

Cool video. Ever think about writing for The late show? Clown.

you can't show up to work drunk, but alcohol is legal. what's the difference?

SizzlePig;1760529 wrote:you can't show up to work drunk, but alcohol is legal. what's the difference?

He's not saying they can't come to work high, he's saying they can't get high on their own time. (I realize others have pointed out that he can fire them for getting high, but I'm just trying to point out the difference)

FatHobbit;1760531 wrote:He's not saying they can't come to work high, he's saying they can't get high on their own time. (I realize others have pointed out that he can fire them for getting high, but I'm just trying to point out the difference)

ok i think i understand now. because marijuana stays in your system to be test for long periods of time?

SizzlePig;1760558 wrote:ok i think i understand now. because marijuana stays in your system to be test for long periods of time?

Alcohol & Cigarettes are much more dangerous the marijuana. That's the big difference between them. We just don't know how to think for ourselves and let fear control our lives.

It will create enormous issues for employers, at a time when job creation is already a big issue. Then you have the issue of dope still being illegal under federal law. At the end of the day, the only winners will be lawyers and drug cartels. Hopefully most Ohioans are sick of the destruction currently caused by drug addiction, and drug trafficking, and will reject this absurd proposal which would lead many down the path toward heroin, meth, crack etc... with their enormous societal costs.

QuakerOats;1760576 wrote:It will create enormous issues for employers, at a time when job creation is already a big issue. Then you have the issue of dope still being illegal under federal law. At the end of the day, the only winners will be lawyers and drug cartels. Hopefully most Ohioans are sick of the destruction currently caused by drug addiction, and drug trafficking, and will reject this absurd proposal which would lead many down the path toward heroin, meth, crack etc... with their enormous societal costs.

http://time.com/4003262/colorado-pot-revenue/

Thoughts?


I'm for legalization, but I do not agree with the route Ohio is going with Issue 3.

QuakerOats;1760576 wrote:It will create enormous issues for employers, at a time when job creation is already a big issue. Then you have the issue of dope still being illegal under federal law. At the end of the day, the only winners will be lawyers and drug cartels. Hopefully most Ohioans are sick of the destruction currently caused by drug addiction, and drug trafficking, and will reject this absurd proposal which would lead many down the path toward heroin, meth, crack etc... with their enormous societal costs.

Damn, you're a giant idiot.

Automatik;1760579 wrote:http://time.com/4003262/colorado-pot-revenue/

Thoughts?


I'm for legalization, but I do not agree with the route Ohio is going with Issue 3.

The tax revenue is only one side of the equation; the drug pushers never discuss the societal costs of drug use and addiction, related crime, and loss of productivity. The costs far outweigh the meager revenues. On top of this, we already have a budget surplus, and a $2 billion rainy day fund, we don't need the revenue, especially when it pales in comparison to the future costs.

Here is a good piece to read: http://www.crescent-news.com/opinion/2015/11/02/mike-dewine-what-i-learned-in-colorado

I have also read several compelling letters from the county's family recovery center director who says that this is about the worst thing we could do to ourselves.

All of the truly 'Responsible' people and leaders in Ohio oppose this, for a multitude of good reasons. They include those in health care, law enforcement, education, news, government, business, and on and on. They represent the TRUE 'Responsible Ohio', as opposed to the deceitful liars and drug pushers on the other side. They ought to be jailed for violation of the truth-in-advertising laws.

You big government types are all alike.

queencitybuckeye;1760587 wrote:You big government types are all alike.

Anti-freedom, big government, wants to bloat our court system by jailing people for having an opinion that differs from his.

And has the audacity to lie to everyone here by repeatedly saying he's in favor of individual freedom. What a pathetic hypocrite.

Heretic;1760588 wrote:Anti-freedom, big government, wants to bloat our court system by jailing people for having an opinion that differs from his.

And has the audacity to lie to everyone here by repeatedly saying he's in favor of individual freedom. What a pathetic hypocrite.

Free to live your life in a way he approves of.

I'm assuming Quaker has had many sleepless nights thinking the legalization of same sex marriage.

If I were living in Ohio I'd take the same approach as sportschamp (or was it superman?) and vote yes on 2 and 3 knowing they contradict each other.

Heretic;1760588 wrote:Anti-freedom, big government, wants to bloat our court system by jailing people for having an opinion that differs from his.

And has the audacity to lie to everyone here by repeatedly saying he's in favor of individual freedom. What a pathetic hypocrite.

Obviously high again. Hope you get help soon.

QuakerOats;1760595 wrote:Obviously high again. Hope you get help soon.

Hopefully one day you get over it, because people who don't support the legalization of marijuana are now overwhelmingly in the minority. I think I saw a Gallup poll a few weeks ago where 60% of the country supports legalization. Time to grow up and move onto an issue that actually matters.

Well, if you think I am going to cave to drug pushers and the like, think again.

Define "drug pushers"