Here’s a major reason for the labor shortage and the ever-falling labor force participation rate. Americans are fat and drugged up. I’m thinking drug legalization is a very bad idea.
‘Army data cited by leaders shows that up to 70% of potential recruits are disqualified in the first 48 hours due to obesity, low test scores or drug use. Previously, that rate was between 30-40%.’
Disagree.
The government should avoid telling adults what to eat/drink/smoke ... whenever possible. Prohibition of alcohol was a terrible idea. Prohibition of MJ strikes me as just as dumb.
I don't see a whole lot of evidence that legalizing MJ is causing more problems than the prohibition thereof has.
I've heard that many businesses can't find people to hire because so many can't pass drug tests. Plus of course so many people have criminal records now.
This is direct evidence that the military is having the same problem.
Drugs destroy people. The government has a real role in trying to reduce that destruction.
The government should avoid telling adults what to eat/drink/smoke ... whenever possible. Prohibition of alcohol was a terrible idea. Prohibition of MJ strikes me as just as dumb.
I don't see a whole lot of evidence that legalizing MJ is causing more problems than the prohibition thereof has.
I've heard that many businesses can't find people to hire because so many can't pass drug tests. Plus of course so many people have criminal records now.
This is direct evidence that the military is having the same problem.
Drugs destroy people. The government has a real role in trying to reduce that destruction.
Disagree.
1) I really don't care for "I've heard that . . . " A bit too Trumpian for my taste.
2) Can't pass drug tests? How in the world would anyone think that it is OK for employers to be making their employees/potential employees take drug tests? What an incredible intrusion into people's privacy. If a drug is not illegal, then how the heck is it any company's business to test for its use? (There are obvious exceptions, such as airline pilots, etc.)
3) I don't have any figures on the number of people with criminal records. Is it substantially different than it was ten years ago? Thirty years ago? What is the evidence that any change is a result of the decriminalization of some drugs? Further, it is not at all obvious to me that creating/maintaining an entire crime category (drug use) is likely to result in the number of people with criminal records go down.
4) Alcohol destroys far more people than any other drug. Does the government also have a role in trying to reduce that destruction? Why don't we go back to Prohibition? Gambling destroys the lives of millions of people. Should it also be outlawed?
Well, anyway, it's been fun. Without some real numbers that very strongly make the case against recreational drug use, I would suggest we err on the side of freedom.
///
Truth in advertising - I have never used any recreational drugs, nor do I have any interest in doing so. At the same time, a clear majority of my friends and family have been and/or remain light or heavy users of MJ for extended periods of time. None seem to have any problems with it. All are employed, seemingly quite happy and are productive citizens.
I've heard that many businesses can't find people to hire because so many can't pass drug tests. Plus of course so many people have criminal records now.
This is direct evidence that the military is having the same problem.
Drugs destroy people. The government has a real role in trying to reduce that destruction.
Disagree.
1) I really don't care for "I've heard that . . . " A bit too Trumpian for my taste.
2) Can't pass drug tests? How in the world would anyone think that it is OK for employers to be making their employees/potential employees take drug tests? What an incredible intrusion into people's privacy. If a drug is not illegal, then how the heck is it any company's business to test for its use? (There are obvious exceptions, such as airline pilots, etc.)
3) I don't have any figures on the number of people with criminal records. Is it substantially different than it was ten years ago? Thirty years ago? What is the evidence that any change is a result of the decriminalization of some drugs? Further, it is not at all obvious to me that creating/maintaining an entire crime category (drug use) is likely to result in the number of people with criminal records go down.
4) Alcohol destroys far more people than any other drug. Does the government also have a role in trying to reduce that destruction? Why don't we go back to Prohibition? Gambling destroys the lives of millions of people. Should it also be outlawed?
Well, anyway, it's been fun. Without some real numbers that very strongly make the case against recreational drug use, I would suggest we err on the side of freedom.
///
Truth in advertising - I have never used any recreational drugs, nor do I have any interest in doing so. At the same time, a clear majority of my friends and family have been and/or remain light or heavy users of MJ for extended periods of time. None seem to have any problems with it. All are employed, seemingly quite happy and are productive citizens.
What about fentanyl, heroin, meth, cocaine, ... etc?
I've heard that many businesses can't find people to hire because so many can't pass drug tests. Plus of course so many people have criminal records now.
This is direct evidence that the military is having the same problem.
Drugs destroy people. The government has a real role in trying to reduce that destruction.
Disagree.
1) I really don't care for "I've heard that . . . " A bit too Trumpian for my taste.
2) Can't pass drug tests? How in the world would anyone think that it is OK for employers to be making their employees/potential employees take drug tests? What an incredible intrusion into people's privacy. If a drug is not illegal, then how the heck is it any company's business to test for its use? (There are obvious exceptions, such as airline pilots, etc.)
3) I don't have any figures on the number of people with criminal records. Is it substantially different than it was ten years ago? Thirty years ago? What is the evidence that any change is a result of the decriminalization of some drugs? Further, it is not at all obvious to me that creating/maintaining an entire crime category (drug use) is likely to result in the number of people with criminal records go down.
4) Alcohol destroys far more people than any other drug. Does the government also have a role in trying to reduce that destruction? Why don't we go back to Prohibition? Gambling destroys the lives of millions of people. Should it also be outlawed?
Well, anyway, it's been fun. Without some real numbers that very strongly make the case against recreational drug use, I would suggest we err on the side of freedom.
///
Truth in advertising - I have never used any recreational drugs, nor do I have any interest in doing so. At the same time, a clear majority of my friends and family have been and/or remain light or heavy users of MJ for extended periods of time. None seem to have any problems with it. All are employed, seemingly quite happy and are productive citizens.
So let it be known that Real Obvi would have no problem getting operated on by a surgeon who is a crack addict, would have no compunction taking a ride on a bus with a driver hooked on magic mushrooms, would have his roof worked on by someone who takes fist fulls of LSD, would trust a smack addict with his tax and credit card information, would send his school with a teacher that likes to smoke PCP, etc.
1) I really don't care for "I've heard that . . . " A bit too Trumpian for my taste.
2) Can't pass drug tests? How in the world would anyone think that it is OK for employers to be making their employees/potential employees take drug tests? What an incredible intrusion into people's privacy. If a drug is not illegal, then how the heck is it any company's business to test for its use? (There are obvious exceptions, such as airline pilots, etc.)
3) I don't have any figures on the number of people with criminal records. Is it substantially different than it was ten years ago? Thirty years ago? What is the evidence that any change is a result of the decriminalization of some drugs? Further, it is not at all obvious to me that creating/maintaining an entire crime category (drug use) is likely to result in the number of people with criminal records go down.
4) Alcohol destroys far more people than any other drug. Does the government also have a role in trying to reduce that destruction? Why don't we go back to Prohibition? Gambling destroys the lives of millions of people. Should it also be outlawed?
Well, anyway, it's been fun. Without some real numbers that very strongly make the case against recreational drug use, I would suggest we err on the side of freedom.
///
Truth in advertising - I have never used any recreational drugs, nor do I have any interest in doing so. At the same time, a clear majority of my friends and family have been and/or remain light or heavy users of MJ for extended periods of time. None seem to have any problems with it. All are employed, seemingly quite happy and are productive citizens.
So let it be known that Real Obvi would have no problem getting operated on by a surgeon who is a crack addict, would have no compunction taking a ride on a bus with a driver hooked on magic mushrooms, would have his roof worked on by someone who takes fist fulls of LSD, would trust a smack addict with his tax and credit card information, would send his school with a teacher that likes to smoke PCP, etc.
You must have missed this part: "(There are obvious exceptions, such as airline pilots, etc.)"
Or maybe you just like advertising how stup!d you are. IDK.
1) I really don't care for "I've heard that . . . " A bit too Trumpian for my taste.
2) Can't pass drug tests? How in the world would anyone think that it is OK for employers to be making their employees/potential employees take drug tests? What an incredible intrusion into people's privacy. If a drug is not illegal, then how the heck is it any company's business to test for its use? (There are obvious exceptions, such as airline pilots, etc.)
3) I don't have any figures on the number of people with criminal records. Is it substantially different than it was ten years ago? Thirty years ago? What is the evidence that any change is a result of the decriminalization of some drugs? Further, it is not at all obvious to me that creating/maintaining an entire crime category (drug use) is likely to result in the number of people with criminal records go down.
4) Alcohol destroys far more people than any other drug. Does the government also have a role in trying to reduce that destruction? Why don't we go back to Prohibition? Gambling destroys the lives of millions of people. Should it also be outlawed?
Well, anyway, it's been fun. Without some real numbers that very strongly make the case against recreational drug use, I would suggest we err on the side of freedom.
///
Truth in advertising - I have never used any recreational drugs, nor do I have any interest in doing so. At the same time, a clear majority of my friends and family have been and/or remain light or heavy users of MJ for extended periods of time. None seem to have any problems with it. All are employed, seemingly quite happy and are productive citizens.
So let it be known that Real Obvi would have no problem getting operated on by a surgeon who is a crack addict, would have no compunction taking a ride on a bus with a driver hooked on magic mushrooms, would have his roof worked on by someone who takes fist fulls of LSD, would trust a smack addict with his tax and credit card information, would send his school with a teacher that likes to smoke PCP, etc.
Right now, of the last ten generic ballot polls, only one shows Rs leading...the (literally) Republican-funded Trafalgar.
Some day you will be clever enough to figure out that your generic ballot metric is useless state by state.
FWIW interesting debate going on right now between the two Nates on whether polling will again underestimate the Rs at midterms. Worth a read. Nate Cohn says yes, Nate Silver is a bit more optimistic, mostly because trump is not on the ballot and polling bias has historically swung back and forth.
Some day you will be clever enough to figure out that your generic ballot metric is useless state by state.
FWIW interesting debate going on right now between the two Nates on whether polling will again underestimate the Rs at midterms. Worth a read. Nate Cohn says yes, Nate Silver is a bit more optimistic, mostly because trump is not on the ballot and polling bias has historically swung back and forth.
Silver is an idiot. If's excited you should be worried.
FWIW interesting debate going on right now between the two Nates on whether polling will again underestimate the Rs at midterms. Worth a read. Nate Cohn says yes, Nate Silver is a bit more optimistic, mostly because trump is not on the ballot and polling bias has historically swung back and forth.
Silver is an idiot. If's excited you should be worried.
Dems destroy their own areas and then flee to red areas and destroy them too like brain dead locusts.
Civil war is coming.
hey remember that the cities are the elite rich places that real Americans hate. You keep forgetting that. Come on man. Sharpen up. Cities = rich = elites = bad.
I keep trying to help you but you don't seem responsive.
FWIW interesting debate going on right now between the two Nates on whether polling will again underestimate the Rs at midterms. Worth a read. Nate Cohn says yes, Nate Silver is a bit more optimistic, mostly because trump is not on the ballot and polling bias has historically swung back and forth.
Silver is an idiot. If's excited you should be worried.
Dems destroy their own areas and then flee to red areas and destroy them too like brain dead locusts.
Civil war is coming.
Most Americans do not want Trumpism. Conservatism is fine, but Trumpism isn’t and will be the downfall of the Republican Party. Lindsay Graham surprisingly clairvoyant
Dems destroy their own areas and then flee to red areas and destroy them too like brain dead locusts.
Civil war is coming.
hey remember that the cities are the elite rich places that real Americans hate. You keep forgetting that. Come on man. Sharpen up. Cities = rich = elites = bad.
I keep trying to help you but you don't seem responsive.
You can't even help yourself.
Gavin Newsome tells you to set your A/C to 80 degrees and turn off the television as he literally sits inside in a jacket because his AC is at 65 and you just eat it up because you're a mindless zombie.
Dems destroy their own areas and then flee to red areas and destroy them too like brain dead locusts.
Civil war is coming.
Most Americans do not want Trumpism. Conservatism is fine, but Trumpism isn’t and will be the downfall of the Republican Party. Lindsay Graham surprisingly clairvoyant
Define Trumpism.
Lindsay Graham is an idiot. Overturning Roe v Wade brought the Democrats back from the dead so Graham decided now is the perfect time to double down on pushing puritan abortion rules down the country's throat.
Lindsay Graham is either working for the Democrats or he's too stupid to be holding public office.
Returning briefly to remind the socialists that the arguments are over. We conservatives are through with “arguments” where your side goes “na na na na na” and fails to actually debate. We are voting for conservatives all the way from here on out. No debate allowed. You’ve blown your game.
Last year saw the largest spike in homicides in history. Let me rephrase it ... we saw the largest spike in homicides last year in our history.
It is funny because in Texas Beto wants to be governor and we have the largest spike in homicides in history and Beto is running ads promoting "Defund the police" and comparing criminal justice to slavery. He is going to get slaughtered. Which office will he futilely run for next?
Last year saw the largest spike in homicides in history. Let me rephrase it ... we saw the largest spike in homicides last year in our history.
It is funny because in Texas Beto wants to be governor and we have the largest spike in homicides in history and Beto is running ads promoting "Defund the police" and comparing criminal justice to slavery. He is going to get slaughtered. Which office will he futilely run for next?
I would guess the reason is that we spent 2020 mostly indoors
Last year saw the largest spike in homicides in history. Let me rephrase it ... we saw the largest spike in homicides last year in our history.
It is funny because in Texas Beto wants to be governor and we have the largest spike in homicides in history and Beto is running ads promoting "Defund the police" and comparing criminal justice to slavery. He is going to get slaughtered. Which office will he futilely run for next?
I would guess the reason is that we spent 2020 mostly indoors
Surely it has nothing to do with Democrats gutting police forces across the country.
The average wait time for a 911 call in New Orleans is over 2 hours.
Why? Because the cops all quit because Democrats hate cops and love criminals.
Most Americans do not want Trumpism. Conservatism is fine, but Trumpism isn’t and will be the downfall of the Republican Party. Lindsay Graham surprisingly clairvoyant
Define Trumpism.
Lindsay Graham is an idiot. Overturning Roe v Wade brought the Democrats back from the dead so Graham decided now is the perfect time to double down on pushing puritan abortion rules down the country's throat.
Lindsay Graham is either working for the Democrats or he's too stupid to be holding public office.
Trumpism is like conservatism, but angry about it. There’s a Wikipedia page on it