Weird ways to get fired at work

I'm inclined to legalize possession of marijuana, but until that happens, its a crime and users are criminals. Criminals who choose to commit a crime cuz it feels good. Hard to trust their decision making.
 
moparrob66 said:
I'm inclined to legalize possession of marijuana, but until that happens, its a crime and users are criminals. Criminals who choose to commit a crime cuz it feels good. Hard to trust their decision making.
Click to expand...

FWIW, the vast majority of americans live in states with legal weed. 74% as of current.

1733774605070.png

"Criminals who choose to commit a crime cuz it feels good"

That's what I was getting at with my speeding comment. It's illegal to speed. And speeding is a safety issue for more than just the driver, it's a public safety issue. So, should speeders be denied a job on that same logic? "Hard to trust their decision making" when they are doing things that are a direct threat not just to themselves, but to the people in their cars and public they share a road with?
 
Half Fast said:
You missed the point. Regardless of what the states do, pot is still against Federal law. Therefore, 0% of Americans live in states where it's legal.
Click to expand...
Didn't miss anything. 74% of americans live in states with legal pot. To claim that weed smokers are criminals making bad decisions when they live in a state with legal weed is disingenuous. I mean, the cole memo even said "hey states, go ahead, but regulate it and we won't get up in your business".
 
172andyou said:
74% of americans live in states with legal pot.
Click to expand...

That is simply factually untrue. There is no state where Federal law does not apply.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. The fact is, pot is illegal.
 
Half Fast said:
That is simply factually untrue. There is no state where Federal law does not apply.
Click to expand...
Read the cole memo. When the policy of the feds is to cede authority to the states and the law of the state is "smoke em if you got em" the idea that weed smokers are criminals whose judgement can't be trusted is laughable.

Now, if you want to argue that weed and FAA don't get along. Fine. Or weed and lockmart (or other federal contractors), fine. And I would agree that someone wanted to work for raytheon that smokes weed is showing poor judgement. But the declaration was a global one, stating that all weed smokers were showing poor judgement.

All of this is likely to age poorly anyway, for two reasons.

1) Weed will become federally legal before too long. So this discussion will become even more academic than it already is.

2) Before that happens, the incoming president will suspend the cole memo (we can say this with confidence because he already did once before). If things work the same way as last time, this will mean that the memo was suspended for political reasons, but there will still be no appetite for enforcement. People can judge for themselves if they think that's a meaningful difference to today's official policy.
 
172andyou said:
FWIW, the vast majority of americans live in states with legal weed. 74% as of current.

View attachment 136015

"Criminals who choose to commit a crime cuz it feels good"

That's what I was getting at with my speeding comment. It's illegal to speed. And speeding is a safety issue for more than just the driver, it's a public safety issue. So, should speeders be denied a job on that same logic? "Hard to trust their decision making" when they are doing things that are a direct threat not just to themselves, but to the people in their cars and public they share a road with?
Click to expand...


I'm with @ half fast on this one. That map is all orange if you want it to be correct! No matter where a person stands on the issue, illegal is illegal.
So many legal issues are just so confusing that even lawyers can't understand them clearly, but this one on the other hand seems pretty simple to me, how is it even a question?

At this point in time, all those states have done is passed an intent for it to be legal in some form or another.

It's sort of like Florida's attempt to make standard time obsolete in favor of permanent DST...a brilliant move to end the stupidity. The governor signed it...but it means NOTHING because the clowns in DC couldn't (or wouldn't?) push it through to the President!...a side note topic so just a rhetorical question here, but how does that issue not have traction?? I've never met a sole that sees any sanity in changing the clocks!

Pot on the other hand... I get it... a lot of folks are for it, but more than just a few are still against it too...not nearly as clean as the clock thing!
 
Brad W said:
So many legal issues are just so confusing that even lawyers can't understand them clearly, but this one on the other hand seems pretty simple to me, how is it even a question?
Click to expand...
The reason it's a question is because many states have said it's legal and the feds have said, 'fine' in a memo instead of a bill that went through congress. So the on the ground reality is that 74% of the population lives someplace where weed is legal, but some people want to pretend like nothing has changed.
 
Half Fast said:
Do you understand the difference between law and memos about executive policy? Do you understand that non-enforcement does not take a law off the books?
Click to expand...
Yep. Do you understand that obeying a state law, especially when the feds have said, "fine", is a pretty rational thing to do?
 
If there's never a cop on a particular 35 mph street, and every driver does 45 on that street and no one ever gets ticketed for it, is it legal to drive 45?
 
Half Fast said:
Does that make it legal?
Click to expand...
In the state where it's legal, yes. And from a federal standpoint, it's one of the thousands of laws that aren't enforced, but don't get removed from the books for political reasons.

But, I'll remind you that we started down this rabbit hole from the assertion that people smoking weed were deciding "to commit a crime cuz it feels good. Hard to trust their decision making."

Which is an absurd assertion since their state is saying it's not a crime and the feds are saying, "you do you" to the states. It's not 1984 anymore. The lines have moved. They will move again.
 
Jim_R said:
If there's never a cop on a particular 35 mph street, and every driver does 45 on that street and no one ever gets ticketed for it, is it legal to drive 45?
Click to expand...
Not really an apples to apples comparison.

If the feds said 55
The state said 65
Then the feds said, "fine, go faster and we're fine with it"
Then it would be apples to apples.
In that scenario, would you insist on going 55 because that was the federal limit? Just put a bumper sticker on the car saying, "I OBEY THE FEDERAL LIMIT!" and ignore everyone honking at you?
 
172andyou said:
Not really an apples to apples comparison.

If the feds said 55
The state said 65
Then the feds said, "fine, go faster and we're fine with it"
Then it would be apples to apples.
In that scenario, would you insist on going 55 because that was the federal limit? Just put a bumper sticker on the car saying, "I OBEY THE FEDERAL LIMIT!" and ignore everyone honking at you?
Click to expand...
The question wasn't, "How would you act?"

The question was: "Is it legal?"

Try again: "Yes" or "No"?
 
Jim_R said:
The question wasn't, "How would you act?"

The question was: "Is it legal?"

Try again: "Yes" or "No"?
Click to expand...
No, the question was whether "to commit a crime cuz it feels good. Hard to trust their decision making" was a valid statement.

Y'all are trying to make this black and white, and that's fine. I understand that several of you have been engineers of various flavors.

But facts are facts. And it's a fact that 74% of the population has access to weed that their government says is legal. It's a fact that the feds have said, 'verily, go forth and smoketh thou weed with our blessing'. My opinion is that these things being true makes a statement like "commit a crime cause it feels good" absurd.
 
Barrett50 said:
You guys are crapping up my 'getting fired' thread. How about back on track if anyone has gotten fired in new and exciting ways.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the interweb
 
Back when having internet access inside a company was starting to be a thing, I had a consulting project at the HQ of an F500 company. We were doing a cost cutting exercise, so not very popular. I finally talked the CIO into giving our team wired access in our team room. About 24 hours later, he came roaring into the team room yelling at us for allowing a virus onto the network which had just shut down. My company had pretty robust protections on our work PC's, so I was pretty sure we were not the cause, but the coincidence was pretty damming.

I went through my company's IT security group and had all our laptops scanned, and they came up clean.

The perp ended up being a client employee surfing porn sites at the rate of one click every 12 seconds for an entire workday. At least one of them had a virus :).
 
Brad W said:
So many legal issues are just so confusing that even lawyers can't understand them clearly, but this one on the other hand seems pretty simple to me, how is it even a question?
Click to expand...
At this point it's a state's rights issue. I don't see anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate what people put in their bodies... but apparently the courts don't see it that way.
172andyou said:
The reason it's a question is because many states have said it's legal and the feds have said, 'fine' in a memo instead of a bill that went through congress. So the on the ground reality is that 74% of the population lives someplace where weed is legal, but some people want to pretend like nothing has changed.
Click to expand...
A memo saying, "We're not going to enforce this law" is a statement of priorities, not a law.
172andyou said:
If the feds said 55
The state said 65
Then the feds said, "fine, go faster and we're fine with it"
Then it would be apples to apples.
In that scenario, would you insist on going 55 because that was the federal limit?
Click to expand...
There was a national 55 limit. It wasn't law, states could set higher limits, but the feds withheld highway funding from states that didn't comply.
 
Dana said:
I don't see anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate what people put in their bodies... but apparently the courts don't see it that way.
Click to expand...

I believe the justification for food and drug rules is that it's part of regulating interstate commerce, but personally I think stretching that rationale to include plants you grow in your own yard or whiskey that you distill yourself is a bit of an overreach. But that's where we are and the law is what it is until Congress changes it or the courts toss it.
 
Half Fast said:
I believe the justification for food and drug rules is that it's part of regulating interstate commerce, but personally I think stretching that rationale to include plants you grow in your own yard or whiskey that you distill yourself is a bit of an overreach. But that's where we are and the law is what it is until Congress changes it or the courts toss it.
Click to expand...
They stretch and twist the interstate commerce clause when it suits them. An ATF agent explained to me that they were able to prosecute a gangbanger for possession of a firearm because the gun was manufactured in New York, possessed in California, and at some point during its existence, money had changed hands for the gun or at least one of its components.

What they’d do with cannabis is show that some component of the growing operation was purchased from within in another state where its being grown. So you live in, let’s say Ohio. You get local seeds, grow it in your own dirt, for your own use, but the fertilizer has some phosphate that was mined in Florida. If the Don’t Expect Anything wants to make a case against you, they’ll claim jurisdiction under the ICC for the phosphate in the fertilizer.

Absolute bastardization of the original intent, but it’s the state of the law today.

Oh, and the firearms case? Well, when the ATF guy explained the ICC deal, I felt like I needed a shower. But the Assistant US Attorney botched the case through lack of being prepared for the defense’s argument, plus got into a measuring contest with the defense attorney in front of the jury. Not guilty was the result.
 
Hang 4 said:
The perp ended up being a client employee surfing porn sites at the rate of one click every 12 seconds for an entire workday. At least one of them had a virus :).
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the time a co-worker asked me about the details on an airplane crash (the first T-34 that shed a wing during simulated dogfighting). The crash was right on his property line. I pointed him to NTSB.gov. He mistakenly typed in NTSB.com. He says I said NTSB.com. But I'm sticking with "I said NTSB.gov".

Anyway, we were both surprised when a very nasty porn page popped up on his work computer. Apparently NTSB.com ISN'T where you go for airplane accident information...
 
Everyone who has ever driven a car at some point has exceeded the posted speed limit, whether accidentally or intentionally. Some of these folks can be trusted to make largely wise and even sometimes ethical decisions. Not the same as intentionally committing drug misdemeanors or felonies in pursuit of a euphoric high or some easy money, and the comparison smells like...ganja.
 
I kinda like the 'most states now allow it, so it should be federally legal' argument that has been advanced in this thread. Now that 29 states recognize the constitutional right to carry a firearm.
 
Brad W said:
It's sort of like Florida's attempt to make standard time obsolete in favor of permanent DST...a brilliant move to end the stupidity. The governor signed it...but it means NOTHING because the clowns in DC couldn't (or wouldn't?) push it through to the President!...a side note topic so just a rhetorical question here, but how does that issue not have traction?? I've never met a sole that sees any sanity in changing the clocks!
Click to expand...
I think the reason it doesn't get traction is that we all hate changing the clocks, but nobody can seem to agree on whether to stay on daylight time or standard time.

As a night owl who lives in eastern Wisconsin at the far eastern edge of the Central time zone, I'd prefer to keep daylight time. A morning person who lives in Nebraska near the western edge of the time zone probably wants to keep standard time... So around and around we go, and nothing gets done.

It might work better to cut the time zones in half. Eastern time would be only in the northeast, from Maine westward to about a line from the eastern edge of lake Ontario down to the Chesapeake. From there west to the western borders of MN, IA, MO, AR and LA could be Central, there to the western borders of NM, CO, WY, and up through central Montana could be Mountain, and the rest could be Pacific. But now it starts to sound like work...
 
Half Fast said:
I think we should forget about time zones and DST and just use GMT everywhere. I’ve seen untold phone conferences and zoom calls get hosed up by time zone differences.
Click to expand...
I don't live above the arctic circle, so I refused to call any time where the sun is up "midnight".

It might be kinda weird to go to work on Monday and come home eight hours later on Tuesday too.
 
The only place where UTC makes sense is on the International Space Station.
 
moparrob66 said:
I'm inclined to legalize possession of marijuana, but until that happens, its a crime and users are criminals. Criminals who choose to commit a crime cuz it feels good. Hard to trust their decision making.
Click to expand...
And people who can't curb their use of a substance even in light of negative aspects on their life fit into the psychological definition of substance dependence.
 
Brad W said:
It's sort of like Florida's attempt to make standard time obsolete in favor of permanent DST...a brilliant move to end the stupidity. The governor signed it...but it means NOTHING because the clowns in DC couldn't (or wouldn't?) push it through to the President!...a side note topic so just a rhetorical question here, but how does that issue not have traction?? I've never met a sole that sees any sanity in changing the clocks!

Pot on the other hand... I get it... a lot of folks are for it, but more than just a few are still against it too...not nearly as clean as the clock thing!
Click to expand...
That is not how it works.

The state can pass laws to make DST full time. Arizona and Hawaii are full time Standard Time. The tail of Indiana also is.

To get it changed at the Federal level is a while different process. And the Governor is not involved. It is up the Senator(s) or Congressmen to start the process.
 
Pinecone said:
That is not how it works.

The state can pass laws to make DST full time. Arizona and Hawaii are full time Standard Time. The tail of Indiana also is.

To get it changed at the Federal level is a while different process. And the Governor is not involved. It is up the Senator(s) or Congressmen to start the process.
Click to expand...

And don’t forget that Florida and Texas both are subject to two different time zones within their state boundaries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top