Time for me to move on from Webroot
-
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Jason said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Everyone in our company gets drug tested randomly at least once per month. If you work on site they draw your name for that day and you go do it and a breathalyzer on site. If you work from home they draw your name that day and they have to go to their doctor and have it done.
People on probation getting tested less often than that!!! lol
Probation officers take their job more seriously.
-
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@JaredBusch said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Jason said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Our company just made it against the rules to smoke even if it's legal in your state. No matter if you are doing it for recreation or medical reasons (on or off the clock)
Is that legal?
Of course it is. Pot is a federal crime still.
HA - I have no idea where Jason's company is, I was assuming he was talking about cigarettes, not weed.
Why would you think that?
-
@NattNatt said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
D.A.R.E taught me if I drink a single beer or smoke a single joint then then I could die instantly.
No joke. The police officer that did our D.A.R.E. program told us a story about a guy who ended up getting killed from having his first beer ever. She also told us that marijuana is as addictive as crack, heroine, or any other street drug so if you try it once you will never be able to stop and it will ruin your life.
I went to a christian school at the time and even these super conservatives that ran the school were completely shocked at her approach. She acted like in 5th grade, we have never seen our parents or anyone drink beer.
-
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@momurda said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
This thread is full of persoonal bias from a lifetime of brainwashing and propaganda.
Why would someone who is hungover from a night of binge drinking be allowed to operate machinery and not someone who smoked a joint the night before? Why? Because you have been trained your entire life to think drugs are bad... that is the only reason you would say this.As for people who smoke not being hireable, well I don't know where yall live, but in Washington, many highly successful people smoke. Many successful people drink. Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation off the clock?
The data from Colorado for the past couple years backs this up: http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/25/early-lessons-from-marijuana-legalizatio
This is the reason I'm leaving too Nic. Best of luck to you sir.
Leaving where?
-
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@momurda said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
This thread is full of persoonal bias from a lifetime of brainwashing and propaganda.
Why would someone who is hungover from a night of binge drinking be allowed to operate machinery and not someone who smoked a joint the night before? Why? Because you have been trained your entire life to think drugs are bad... that is the only reason you would say this.As for people who smoke not being hireable, well I don't know where yall live, but in Washington, many highly successful people smoke. Many successful people drink. Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation off the clock?
The data from Colorado for the past couple years backs this up: http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/25/early-lessons-from-marijuana-legalizatio
This is the reason I'm leaving too Nic. Best of luck to you sir.
I guess I should clarify a bit. Legalization imo should take place on the federal level ASAP though it never will... This state is flooded with stoners now... Not saying some aren't smart but they've managed to wreck the population entirely. I can't take the traffic or day to day commute anymore... For states looking to legalize in hopes of getting tax money it'll work but at what cost?
It'll even out. It's only a problem now because of the combination of massive American stoner culture combined with only a few states legalizing it. So the first ones got flooded. But now that California and Texas have legalized, that will slow down a lot. Once NY and a few more, like FLA, do, you'll notice the stoner migration almost entirely stop. It is only happening right now because there are so many people who want it and so few places to go (and the places to go are not very big, single major metro states.)
There is a reason why Europe doesnt have this problem even thought it is basically legal everywhere.
-
@Jason said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@JaredBusch said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Jason said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Our company just made it against the rules to smoke even if it's legal in your state. No matter if you are doing it for recreation or medical reasons (on or off the clock)
Is that legal?
Of course it is. Pot is a federal crime still.
HA - I have no idea where Jason's company is, I was assuming he was talking about cigarettes, not weed.
Why would you think that?
You used the word "smoking" I think, which many people use as a drug term for tobacco, rather than a generic term for burning herbs in a wrap.
-
DARE is more about making good choices now. They barely even touch on drugs and alcohol.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@momurda said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
This thread is full of persoonal bias from a lifetime of brainwashing and propaganda.
Why would someone who is hungover from a night of binge drinking be allowed to operate machinery and not someone who smoked a joint the night before? Why? Because you have been trained your entire life to think drugs are bad... that is the only reason you would say this.As for people who smoke not being hireable, well I don't know where yall live, but in Washington, many highly successful people smoke. Many successful people drink. Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation off the clock?
The data from Colorado for the past couple years backs this up: http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/25/early-lessons-from-marijuana-legalizatio
This is the reason I'm leaving too Nic. Best of luck to you sir.
Leaving where?
Leaving Denver for Boise.
-
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@momurda said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
This thread is full of persoonal bias from a lifetime of brainwashing and propaganda.
Why would someone who is hungover from a night of binge drinking be allowed to operate machinery and not someone who smoked a joint the night before? Why? Because you have been trained your entire life to think drugs are bad... that is the only reason you would say this.As for people who smoke not being hireable, well I don't know where yall live, but in Washington, many highly successful people smoke. Many successful people drink. Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation off the clock?
The data from Colorado for the past couple years backs this up: http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/25/early-lessons-from-marijuana-legalizatio
This is the reason I'm leaving too Nic. Best of luck to you sir.
Leaving where?
Leaving Denver for Boise.
I derived that after reading more
Seems like Boise will be soon to follow, it's in the pot corridor.
-
@BRRABill said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
DARE is more about making good choices now. They barely even touch on drugs and alcohol.
Never saw DARE as a kid.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@momurda said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
This thread is full of persoonal bias from a lifetime of brainwashing and propaganda.
Why would someone who is hungover from a night of binge drinking be allowed to operate machinery and not someone who smoked a joint the night before? Why? Because you have been trained your entire life to think drugs are bad... that is the only reason you would say this.As for people who smoke not being hireable, well I don't know where yall live, but in Washington, many highly successful people smoke. Many successful people drink. Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation off the clock?
The data from Colorado for the past couple years backs this up: http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/25/early-lessons-from-marijuana-legalizatio
This is the reason I'm leaving too Nic. Best of luck to you sir.
Leaving where?
Leaving Denver for Boise.
I derived that after reading more
Seems like Boise will be soon to follow, it's in the pot corridor.
Don't tell me that...
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@BRRABill said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
DARE is more about making good choices now. They barely even touch on drugs and alcohol.
Never saw DARE as a kid.
It was pretty new when I was kid about 20 years ago
-
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@momurda said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
This thread is full of persoonal bias from a lifetime of brainwashing and propaganda.
Why would someone who is hungover from a night of binge drinking be allowed to operate machinery and not someone who smoked a joint the night before? Why? Because you have been trained your entire life to think drugs are bad... that is the only reason you would say this.As for people who smoke not being hireable, well I don't know where yall live, but in Washington, many highly successful people smoke. Many successful people drink. Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation off the clock?
The data from Colorado for the past couple years backs this up: http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/25/early-lessons-from-marijuana-legalizatio
This is the reason I'm leaving too Nic. Best of luck to you sir.
Leaving where?
Leaving Denver for Boise.
I derived that after reading more
Seems like Boise will be soon to follow, it's in the pot corridor.
Don't tell me that...
You are in the wrong part of the country. Deep south and the NorthEast are likely to be the last to legalize. Or Arizona where they just hate everyone.
-
The upside to legalization is that it drops total usage. The problem is that if you legalize locally, this fails. You have to legalize broadly. It's just like gambling. Make only AC and Vegas allowed to gamble and they become major problems. Make gambling legal everywhere and the problem mostly goes away, like in Europe or Central America. You can gamble anywhere, so almost no one does.
-
DARE actually made kids do more drugs. Look at the case studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education
-
Every study shows higher drug use for kids in DARE than without DARE
-
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@BRRABill said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
DARE is more about making good choices now. They barely even touch on drugs and alcohol.
Never saw DARE as a kid.
It was pretty new when I was kid about 20 years ago
Ugh D.A.R.E how best to instill distrust in law enforcement then to tell kids they are going to die/be arrested if they try even one joint or have one drink. They jumped the shark right around when I went through their programs.
-
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
DARE actually made kids do more drugs. Look at the case studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education
That's what I'd always heard. They made doing drugs seem cool. Or, more importantly, made not doing drugs dorky. It was REALLY obvious that it was going to push drugs when I first learned about it. Everyone said the same thing - it was so ridiculous that it was pushing kids to do drugs. It also raised awareness at a time when a lot of people had zero exposure to drugs. It encourages those that never saw them to seek them out.
-
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Every study shows higher drug use for kids in DARE than without DARE
That does seem weird - why do you think that is so? rebellious nature of kids?
-
Wasn't DARE like a drug version of the Hitler Youth?
