Legalizing Marajuana

[Admiral]

This is an example of the absurdity of free-market totalitarianism. If you as an employer also said "I will not hire anyone who will not give me a blow-job and swallow my semen" the govenment then says "that's illegal - That's illegal- you can't not hire someone just because they refused to take a drug test". By your logic you are being "forced" to hire people you don't want. However, you're not. You're being forced to respect a person's privacy, civil rights and human rights. I know, boo-fukkin-hoo, the government is protecting a citizen's rights.

Now you're hitting the most controversial issues: I don't think it should be illegal to require sex to be hired. (Obviously I personally would never do something that I find so despicable, but there's a big difference between despicable and illegal). This is, of course, similar to the argument over prostitution, so most of the arguments I make are applicable to the other.

Here's the simple reason: I support property rights. The employer has his property (he owns the money and controls the corporation), and the employee has hers (she owns herself- no one can legally force her to do anything sexual). If the employer wants to trade a job for sex, and an employee agrees to it, what right does the government have to say that it's a violation of the employee's rights?

You don't have an intrinsic right to anyone else's property. I can't claim any right to any of your property unless you agree to it. However, you're saying that employees have a right to the employer's property- that one of their human rights is to be able to demand a job from the employer. If the employer wants to hire the most skilled people for the job, then he has a right to do that. If he wants to hire people that agree to sleep with him, then he has a right to do that. If he doesn't hire anyone and instead sits around in a pile of money, well, he has a right to do that.

People's rights only extend as far as they infringe anyone else's. Obviously every person has the right to their own body- no one can be allowed to force them to have sex against their will. And the employee has the right to his property. Neither one should be allowed to force the other to give up anything- they should only be allowed to make voluntary exchanges.

Let me make a quick side note. This is different from a lot of forms of sexual harrasment, many of which SHOULD be illegal. If an employer, after hiring someone, says he'll fire her unless she has sex with him, it's a breach of contract- that should be illegal. Also, many cases of this would fall into the category of harrasment- the question is whether there's a potential for mental harm (there certainly is that possibility when an employer demands sex from an employee). However, what should be legal is the employer simply publicly stating that he will not hire anyone who doesn't sleep with him. Most people will rightly find him despicable, but those who don't should be free to sleep with him and get a job for it.

Now, you might say, "That makes sense in terms of property rights, but FORGET property rights, you're suggesting a society that is not based on merit or ability but instead on sexuality! There is no justification for this!" Here's the thing, though- the effects would not NEARLY be as bad as you think they would be. Let's look at it from a consequentialist point of view instead of a deontological one:

Would you ever work for an employer that demanded sex from his employees? Neither would I. Would you ever do business (buy products from, sell resources to) with an employer who demanded sex from his employees? Neither would I. Some would, but the point is that doing this is an ENORMOUS cost to a business. And the cost goes farther than that- by hiring people based on sexuality rather than merit, they're hiring unqualified people. In short, there is a huge financial incentive NOT to use these policies. If I trust corporations with one thing, it's that they really, really want to make money.

So the behavior wouldn't even be CLOSE to widespread (particularly since in a free society, prostitution would be legal. Executives wouldn't sacrifice their companies for sex if they could pay for it directly). And if this awful practice of demanding sex in exchange for employment does go on, it doesn't have to hurt you at all. Just don't work for the employers that do this (which would be very rare) and don't buy their products. In the end, no one ends up getting hurt.

Remember, you only believe that people are getting hurt because they have a right to a job. The simple fact is, though, that you own yourself. No one should be allowed to force you to do anything you don't want to do. Therefore, the right of an employer not to give someone a job trumps the person's right to force that employer to give them a job.

 

[AmateurScientist]

No, of course not, and I wasn't talking about a slippery slope or anything. I was just trying to find the line that would be drawn, and why.

Well, it gets murky in the implementation. After all, we have controlled substances that are unlawful to possess without a duly authorized prescription from a medical doctor. On the other hand, we have alcohol, which is controlled by means of tax stamps and licenses to sell it. Where do marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other street drugs fit in? Are they closer to the prescription drug model or the alcohol model? Depends.

Let's not forget, however, that there are black markets for legal stuff, as well.

Right. There's a black market for concert and sporting events tickets, for instance. It's called scalping. Apart from the scalping itself, such a black market isn't surrounded by any significant ancillary crime. That's because the tickets are not prohibited substances people use to get high.

And, I assume, deal with crimes commited while under their influence just like you would those under the influence of alcohol ?

Of course. That's precisely how they are dealt with today. DUI and DWI statutes have provisions criminalizing driving under the influence of a controlled substance, which includes street drugs and controlled prescription drugs, even with a prescription, and even an over-the-counter medication like Nyquil if that controlled substance or medication impairs the driver's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

AS

 

[Admiral]

ETA: Claiming that this constitutes force is bogus. Force would be the government or some other entity showing up with guns drawn and telling you to "hire this person or else".

So what DOES happen? The end move is to use guns.

If someone started a business and had a policy like that, the government would ask him to stop, and would file complaints with the Department of Labor, and so on. He keeps running his business, and then the government orders him to stop. He ignores them. What is the government going to do? According to you, they're never going to use force, so the law has no effect anyway.

If an employer doesn't want to run a business where he is obliged to respect the rights of his employees, he can always sell his company, or move it to someplace where he won't be expected to respect the rights of his employees. In otherwords, no one is making him run a business in the USA, he can give it up anytime, for any reason.

As I said earlier, what rights? They're not being forced to do anything.

I'm trying to minimize the role of that force plays in society. Just saying, "Well, America is like this, so if you don't like it, leave" can apply to every single political issue. Don't like America's position on gay marriage? You can leave. Don't like the criminalization of drugs? You can leave.

Wow, politics is suddenly so simple!

 

[Lonewulf]

Just saying, "Well, America is like this, so if you don't like it, leave" can apply to every single political issue. Don't like America's position on gay marriage? You can leave. Don't like the criminalization of drugs? You can leave.

Wow, politics is suddenly so simple!

Admiral, I've just become your fan. That was hilarious.

 

[Tony]

That's quite a lot of jobs, though, if not most of them.

No it isn't. The vast majority of jobs entail duties that pose no danger to the general public.

Even a janitor may have to operate a vehicle that would make him a liability (even just to get to the job location).

Yeah, because buffing floors kills hundreds of people a year. We'd hate to raise the body could by allowing the janitors to smoke a joint off the clock.

In fact, if anyone is unable to function at his job thanks to heavy drug use, then he will become a liability to his employer.

"Heavy use" (this is you moving the goal posts) of anything can make someone a liabiliy to his employer. Why single out drugs? Lets have company mandated diets, company mandated sex habits, company mandated drunking habits and a list of company approved recreational activities. Furthermore, I don't care about people being able to function at their jobs, that's a different matter entirely.

The only job I can really think of that wouldn't be affected by heavy drug use would be human drug testing, really.

Who said anything about jobs being effected? I'm concerned about the harm that could be done to the general public by mixing a particular job with drug use.

 

[Tony]

Now you're hitting the most controversial issues: I don't think it should be illegal to require sex to be hired.

Well then there is nothing more to say. You're a sick freak who has no respect for human rights.

Libertarian my ass.

 

[Lonewulf]

No it isn't. The vast majority of jobs entail duties that pose no danger to the general public.

Yeah, because buffing floors kills hundreds of people a year. We'd hate to raise the body could by allowing the janitors to smoke a joint off the clock.

What about driving to work? What about dealing with your taxes? Or your property? So it's only where life or limb is at stake, and nothing else?

"Heavy use" (this is you moving the goal posts) of anything can make someone a liabiliy to his employer. Why single out drugs?

Because certain drugs impair the brain by a great amount and are heavily addictive.

Lets have company mandated diets, company mandated sex habits, company mandated drunking habits and a list of company approved recreational activities.

Hmmm, drinking habits... I think that companies reserve the right to fire someone if they are sufficiently impaired by drinking habits, yes.

Furthermore, I don't care about people being able to function at their jobs, that's a different matter entirely.

Depends on how much you're counting on that job.

However, once more: If you don't care about people being able to function at their jobs, and you consider "peering into their lives" (such as their drug use habits) to be invasion of privacy that should be illegal... then once more, why should any company require, or decide on anyone based on a resume? Why not make the resume illegal? It's peering into their lives, after all, and it certainly discriminates.

 

[Admiral]

Well then there is nothing more to say. You're a sick freak who has no respect for human rights.

Libertarian my ass.

Nice ad hominem attacks.

Seriously, though- what human rights are you referring to? Locke listed them as life, liberty, and property. For starters, which one is it, or is it another one?

Also- what do you think of the legalization of prostitution? Do you think that anyone who supports it is a sick freak?

Did you read my post or did you just stop thinking when you reached an idea you were unfamiliar with?

Tony- in all seriousness, if I'm wrong, I honestly want to know, and I want to know the reasons why.

 

[Tony]

So what DOES happen? The end move is to use guns.

That doesn't mean he is being forced to hire people he doesn't want.

If someone started a business and had a policy like that, the government would ask him to stop, and would file complaints with the Department of Labor, and so on. He keeps running his business, and then the government orders him to stop. He ignores them. What is the government going to do? According to you, they're never going to use force, so the law has no effect anyway.

That still doesn't mean he is being forced to hire people he doesn't want, it only means he is being forced from infringing on people's rights.

As I said earlier, what rights? They're not being forced to do anything.

And neither is the employer being forced to do anything. No one is making him run his own business.

I'm trying to minimize the role of that force plays in society.

Then don't allow employers to be little totalitarians.

Just saying, "Well, America is like this, so if you don't like it, leave" can apply to every single political issue. Don't like America's position on gay marriage? You can leave. Don't like the criminalization of drugs? You can leave.

In this case, it holds true. America is a place where people have civil, human and individual rights. If an employer doesn't want to respect said rights, he has no business being in a position of power.

 

[Tony]

What about driving to work? What about dealing with your taxes? Or your property?

What about them?

So it's only where life or limb is at stake, and nothing else?

What's only where life and limb is at stake?

Because certain drugs impair the brain by a great amount and are heavily addictive.

So can food and sex. And personal woes.

I know the solution. Let's outlaw life, that'll make everyone good little worker bees. Then maybe your communistic vision of a freemarket utopia will be realized.

Hmmm, drinking habits... I think that companies reserve the right to fire someone if they are sufficiently impaired by drinking habits, yes.

Exactly!! This has nothing to do with whether drug test should be legal or not. If someone's drug use is a problem, that problem will be discovered without the need of a drug test.

However, once more: If you don't care about people being able to function at their jobs, and you consider "peering into their lives" (such as their drug use habits) to be invasion of privacy that should be illegal... then once more, why should any company require, or decide on anyone based on a resume? Why not make the resume illegal? It's peering into their lives, after all, and it certainly discriminates.

It's irrellvant to whether drug test should be legal or not. That's what I mean by "I don't care". It is a red herring.

 

[Tony]

Nice ad hominem attacks.

How else would you describe someone who supports legalized rape? "Sick freak" is being charitable.

 

[Admiral]

That doesn't mean he is being forced to hire people he doesn't want.

Yes it does! You're admitting that guns end up getting involved, so yes it does!

That still doesn't mean he is being forced to hire people he doesn't want, it only means he is being forced from infringing on people's rights.

Do you support legalization of prostitution?

If so, then what is the difference between hiring someone for sex and hiring them for sex and accounting?

If not, then I have to ask- whose human rights are being violated by prostitution? The prostitute? We're doing a great job at protecting her human rights by throwing her in jail...

There's no such thing as a right not to be allowed to do something. It isn't a prostitute's human right not to be allowed to trade sex for money. It isn't an employee's human right not to be allowed to trade sex for a promotion.

And neither is the employer being forced to do anything. No one is making him run his own business.

Huh? He's being forced NOT to do something. There's no way you can deny that. And the only time the government should force someone not to do something is if it violates someone else's rights, so I'll ask you again: spell out the right that is being violated.

Then don't allow employers to be little totalitarians.

The employee-employer relationship is a trade. If either one doesn't want to enter the trade, neither one should be forced to.

If an employee knows that she will have to sleep with the employer if she is hired, and she agrees to work for him anyway, then why is she a victim of totalitarianism?

In this case, it holds true. America is a place where people have civil, human and individual rights. If an employer doesn't want to respect said rights, he has no business being in a position of power.

I'll ask again: please spell out the right that is being violated.

 

[Luke T.]

Here is the problem:

Drug tests have an error rate of about 10% That means if you don't do drugs, you still have about a 10% chance of comming up dirty.

I am extremely skeptical of this statistic. Possibly there is an error rate that high in the civilian sector, but not in the military.

People that actually do drugs know how to beat the tests. It's not that hard.

Pray tell.

 

[Admiral]

How else would you describe someone who supports legalized rape? "Sick freak" is being charitable.

Legalized rape?

How many times do I have to spell this out: it would ONLY be legal if the employee completely consented to it when she signed up. She would literally have to sign a contract explaining that one of the things she expects to do in the job is sleep with the employer.

It IS comparable to prostitution. It is NOT comparable to rape, for the same reason that a job is not comparable to slavery.

 

[Luke T.]

If drug tests were easy to get around, how come athletes keep getting caught?

I don't know how they do it in the civilian world. Probably not like the military where a military policeman is standing over you as you pee in the cup.

I have shy kidneys. I hated that crap.

 

[Tony]

Legalized rape?

Yep, you said:

I don't think it should be illegal to require sex to be hired.

You think it should be legal for an employer, a person in a position of power, to use that power as leverage to coerce sex from a person seeking employment.

How many times do I have to spell this out: it would ONLY be legal if the employee completely consented to it when she signed up.

And what happens if she refuses consent?

 

[Tony]

Yes it does! You're admitting that guns end up getting involved, so yes it does!

No it doesn't. He can still hire who he wants. He just can't drug test them. He is the one using force, the government would be stopping him.

Do you support legalization of prostitution?

Yes.

If so, then what is the difference between hiring someone for sex and hiring them for sex and accounting?

Red herring. I'm not talking about hiring people for "sex and accounting". I'm talking about making it a requirement to perform sexual acts to get the accounting job.

It isn't an employee's human right not to be allowed to trade sex for a promotion.

But it's an employees human right to not be required to do so.

Huh? He's being forced NOT to do something.

No he isn't. Who is this person or government forcing this guy to keep his business open and running? Furthermore, he is being forced to respect his employees human and civil rights.

There's no way you can deny that. And the only time the government should force someone not to do something is if it violates someone else's rights, so I'll ask you again: spell out the right that is being violated.

Privacy, the right to liberty, freedom from oppression, freedom of religion.

The employee-employer relationship is a trade.

That's part of it, yes.

If either one doesn't want to enter the trade, neither one should be forced to.

No one is forcing the employer to stay in business. If he doesn't want to hire employees, he doesn't have to.

If an employee knows that she will have to sleep with the employer if she is hired, and she agrees to work for him anyway, then why is she a victim of totalitarianism?

Because she is being raped (being coerced into consenting to have sex) against her will, and with the allowance of the government so she can support her family and herself? I mean, are you really that depraved that you can't grasp this?

 

[steverino]

... there has never been a single death attributed to marijuana overdose

Um, so it should be legal because of this "fact?"

 

[Lonewulf]

If drug tests were easy to get around, how come athletes keep getting caught?

I have a friend that knows how to beat drug tests for stuff like marijuana. There's stuff you drink that cleanses your body of it. I don't know the details, though, but it works for him. I don't think it would work for everyone, though.

 

[Lonewulf]

Um, so it should be legal because of this "fact?"

There's several arguments for marijuana being legal. That's not the only one. You want some others?

Alcohol is legal. Alcohol messes you up far more than marijuana does.

Cigarettes are legal. They're far more addictive and they're bound to kill ya.

Marijuana, when legalized, will be much easier to regulate; and it's much easier to catch someone on evading taxes than having a small stash of marijuana on their persons.