Trolling the ship channel?

[AceArcher]

So someone refresh me again.. is this topic about

A. Trolling
B. trolling
C. Pot
D. Politics
E. Religion
F. Cherry Pie
H. Popcorn
I. Popcorn toppings and pass procedure.

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

So you've skillfully avoided answering most of my questions, but you are making a case that government power should be exerted to force employers to prove their drug testing requirements and policies are reasonable and needed.

So your vision is for a government bureaucrat or court decide what drug policies and testing practices are reasonable. The employer has the burden of proof that drug use occurred at work or is impacting performance. Drug users get to be a protected class. Private insurers and employers are not at liberty to decide on their employment and insuring policies, but are subject to government control, because drug users are a protected class.

This is not true libertarian government. This is pothead utopia. The government will end up forcing private employers and insurance companies to employ and insure drug users. Insurance companies will have to prove to some government bureaucrat or court that certain behaviors and drug use increases risks rather than relying on their own risk assessment practices and policies.

Those questions weren't for me BTW, and you know what a libertarians answer to those questions are.

[AceArcher]

I wonder if we can hit 20+ pages again.

[Goooh]

Has anyone noticed that Mg never discusses what's at hand, he always jumps all over in an attempt to wear people down, similar to footwork in boxing.

This is why the thread covered 10 topics in very few posts, most people don't even know what is going on now without reading the thread twice.

Every MG reply is not a legitimate argument, but a diversion and attempt to get the attention off of his shortcomings.

True HardHead

[Goooh]

W has to be confused as crap right now, he loves MG's pot and libertarian rants, but hairs how he fishes. Now, they are all coming to head in one epic thread, W would have blew this thread up if anyone else would have started it! Lmao

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

I believe i am a true Libertarian...

Are we once again degraded to your viewpoint that potheads are incapable of contributing to society in any meaningful way whatsoever?

Do i agree 100% with every single point listed in the Libertarian Platform.... no.... but by and far they represent a very large percentage of what changes could occur that would quickly bring this country back to it's rightful position as leader of the free world.

For example... i will even give you a freebee.... i'm sure you will happily use it to call me a commie socialist or something.

The libertarian policy in regards to Healthcare is that the insurance industry market should be stripped of government and protectionism. Selling over state lines should be allowed as should collective bargaining agreements with groups of like minded consumer... ie. switch to a true free market system with a Laissez faire mindset toward the economic's portion of it.

I do believe that would work to some extent.... and it would certainly be a HUGE improvement over the joke that is our current healthcare system.

However... My personal belief's differ from the LP on this subject, I believe that we should in fact switch to a 100% socialized health care system. With appropriate governmental regulation. Set up in similar fashion to successful socialized health care plans currently in place in many of this worlds countries.

I believe this because personally i believe basic solid healthcare (no boobjobs or such allowed) is a human right. I also believe it because these countries have shown that they can provide more doctors and more hospital beds and better service accross the board resulting in longer healthier lives for their countries citizens.

Drug legalization would be much easier for many people to accept if society insisted that the individual users themselves assumed all the attendant risks of drug use/misuse/abuse. This would be a true libertarian view.

Sure drug users can contribute to society. I am not saying they can't. However, I think recreational drug use/misuse/abuse tends to reduce the potential for individuals to contribute and tends to increase the risk of them becoming a burden to society through greater accident risk, unwanted pregnancy risk, disease risk, and reduced work productivity.

Your view is not just for drug users to be free to use drugs as long as they assume all the risk. Until and unless the welfare state (safety net) is dismantled (including health care), your position is that society as a whole should share the risks of increased medical costs, increased pregnancy risks, increased accident risks, increased disease risks, and reduced work productivity of unrestricted drug use/misuse/abuse.

There are many fields where drug use/abuse does not seem to significantly reduce the value of employees work production. There are other fields where the risks are obviously unacceptable. My point is that it is not the government's job to decide which are which. The owners and management of each individual business should be free to decide, except in cases where there are obvious public safety risks that require government oversight (airplane pilots, for example). The consequences for an employer deciding wrongly (foolish employment policy regarding drug use) should be left up to the free market. If an employer's policy is too restrictive, the business will be at a competitive disadvantage because he is failing to hire some great employees simply because they use drugs.

Employers and insurers should have complete freedom with regard to their drug testing policies.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Goooh

W has to be confused as crap right now, he loves MG's pot and libertarian rants, but hairs how he fishes. Now, they are all coming to head in one epic thread, W would have blew this thread up if anyone else would have started it! Lmao

Mature adults appreciate differences. W may disagree with how I fish, but I doubt he would advocate any legal restrictions. He probably appreciates our removal of gafftops and bull drum. It's just not something that he enjoys doing himself.

The LP needs to clarify its position on federalism. The 2012 platform is vague on their degree of willingness to use federal power to force states to adopt libertarian policies. They really seem to be retreating from Ron Paul's long held position that each state needs to be free to decide for itself which libertarian policies to adopt and which to reject.

Being for gay marriage is one thing. Advocating for the federal courts to ram gay marriage down the throats of all 50 states is something else.

Being for drug legalization is one thing. Advocating for the feds to force states to legalize drugs is something else.

[Jordan]

wow.... i cant read those long posts... i give up... ya'll win.... gimme that popcorn back Ace !!

[Jadams]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

My wife and I are enjoying our 25th year of marital bliss, and we enjoy a bottle of wine now and then. I make my living solving math and science problems that other people can't and (even if it were legal), there is no way I would impair my moral and scientific judgment by smoking weed, nor would I impair my mathematical abilities. Middle age is hard enough on my mathematical and scientific abilities, and I killed too many brain cells in college.

As an educator, I also need to set a positive example for students everywhere. Physics, Chemistry, and Calculus are hard enough without chemical interference. As a parent, I need to set a positive example for my children. The US will need some home grown scientists and engineers in the next generation.

Life is pretty fun without smoking weed. I've got a smokin' hot wife, beautiful and brilliant children, and a great career. I have no idea what smoking weed feels like, but I doubt it can compare to homeschooling my children, a relaxing evening at home with my wife, or screaming drags catching one bull red after another.

Pics of the smoking hot wife or it didn't happen!

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Sure drug users can contribute to society. I am not saying they can't. However, I think recreational drug use/misuse/abuse tends to reduce the potential for individuals to contribute and tends to increase the risk of them becoming a burden to society through greater accident risk, unwanted pregnancy risk, disease risk, and reduced work productivity. As long as you continue to reference a person like Gary Johnson as a "long haired hippie drug user" I can't really in good conscience think that you find any value in anyone who has ever partaken of any illicit drug. Additionally both research and reality have shown clearly that once marijuana is legalized / decriminalized there is significant reductions to all the "burden's on society" that you have listed... but we have went over all that before.

Your view is not just for drug users to be free to use drugs as long as they assume all the risk. Until and unless the welfare state (safety net) is dismantled (including health care), your position is that society as a whole should share the risks of increased medical costs, increased pregnancy risks, increased accident risks, increased disease risks, and reduced work productivity of unrestricted drug use/misuse/abuse. Sheer fear mongering

There are many fields where drug use/abuse does not seem to significantly reduce the value of employees work production. There are other fields where the risks are obviously unacceptable. My point is that it is not the government's job to decide which are which. The owners and management of each individual business should be free to decide, except in cases where there are obvious public safety risks that require government oversight (airplane pilots, for example). The consequences for an employer deciding wrongly (foolish employment policy regarding drug use) should be left up to the free market. If an employer's policy is too restrictive, the business will be at a competitive disadvantage because he is failing to hire some great employees simply because they use drugs.

Employers and insurers should have complete freedom with regard to their drug testing policies.

Exactly where in the libertarian's platform do you see that they intend to be the new "Thought Police"? Could you please point it out?

New's at 11... "The Sky is still.... not falling"

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Jordan

wow.... i cant read those long posts... i give up... ya'll win.... gimme that popcorn back Ace !!

Dang dude... i popped you an extra bag an errythang....

***?

[southLA]

Something about this thread has changed since I left....lol

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Jadams

Pics of the smoking hot wife or it didn't happen!

Dude... Your not allowed to use tactical nukes in online intahnet warz.....


Sheesh....

[MathGeek]

I wrote:

Employers and insurers should have complete freedom with regard to their drug testing policies.

AA replied:

Exactly where in the libertarian's platform do you see that they intend to be the new "Thought Police"? Could you please point it out?

Goooh advocated in this very thread for drug testing by private employers to continue, just as it does now. Presumably this means with all the government intrusion and Dept. of Labor regulations currently in force.

I advocate for something different. Real liberty. Just as any EMPLOYEE can currently quit (assuming no contract obligations otherwise) if their EMPLOYER refuses to voluntarily submit to a drug test requested by the EMPLOYEE or if the EMPLOYER tests positive, real liberty would allow employers to require testing of employees at will, with refusal to test or testing positive taken as grounds for immediate dismissal without all the federal government oversight and regulation that currently exists. Libertarians want smaller government and less regulation, right?

Likewise AceArcher has advocated universal healthcare in this very thread. Presumably this means insurance must be provided to all, regardless of their drug use. In contrast, I think the true libertarian position would be that any insurance company can decide to cancel insurance or charge more for drug users.

Please note that I make a distinction between "libertarian" as a political philosophy and "Libertarian" as a US political party.

[Clampy]

I can't believe I fished through all this today. This is great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Clampy

I can't believe I fished through all this today. This is great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a low blow man......

why you have to cut me so deep!

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I wrote:

Employers and insurers should have complete freedom with regard to their drug testing policies.

AA replied:

Exactly where in the libertarian's platform do you see that they intend to be the new "Thought Police"? Could you please point it out?

Goooh advocated in this very thread for drug testing by private employers to continue, just as it does now. Presumably this means with all the government intrusion and Dept. of Labor regulations currently in force.

I advocate for something different. Real liberty. Just as any EMPLOYEE can currently quit (assuming no contract obligations otherwise) if their EMPLOYER refuses to voluntarily submit to a drug test requested by the EMPLOYEE or if the EMPLOYER tests positive, real liberty would allow employers to require testing of employees at will, with refusal to test or testing positive taken as grounds for immediate dismissal without all the federal government oversight and regulation that currently exists. Libertarians want smaller government and less regulation, right?

Likewise AceArcher has advocated universal healthcare in this very thread. Presumably this means insurance must be provided to all, regardless of their drug use. In contrast, I think the true libertarian position would be that any insurance company can decide to cancel insurance or charge more for drug users.

Please note that I make a distinction between "libertarian" as a political philosophy and "Libertarian" as a US political party.

Nice.... glad to see you came around and managed to disparage me.... I was beginning to lose faith in your skills.

I think if you re-read the actual post that i made you can see that i pretty clearly stated that it was an opinion of mine in which i diverged from the LP parties position...

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I wrote:

Employers and insurers should have complete freedom with regard to their drug testing policies.

AA replied:

Exactly where in the libertarian's platform do you see that they intend to be the new "Thought Police"? Could you please point it out?

Goooh advocated in this very thread for drug testing by private employers to continue, just as it does now. Presumably this means with all the government intrusion and Dept. of Labor regulations currently in force.

I advocate for something different. Real liberty. Just as any EMPLOYEE can currently quit (assuming no contract obligations otherwise) if their EMPLOYER refuses to voluntarily submit to a drug test requested by the EMPLOYEE or if the EMPLOYER tests positive, real liberty would allow employers to require testing of employees at will, with refusal to test or testing positive taken as grounds for immediate dismissal without all the federal government oversight and regulation that currently exists. Libertarians want smaller government and less regulation, right?

Likewise AceArcher has advocated universal healthcare in this very thread. Presumably this means insurance must be provided to all, regardless of their drug use. In contrast, I think the true libertarian position would be that any insurance company can decide to cancel insurance or charge more for drug users.

Please note that I make a distinction between "libertarian" as a political philosophy and "Libertarian" as a US political party.

Wait a second.... "if their EMPLOYER refuses to voluntarily submit to a drug test requested by the EMPLOYEE or if the EMPLOYER tests positive"

Exactly who is taking the drugs here??????????? Those damned pothead employeers!!!!!

[MathGeek]

From the Wiki on GJ's political positions:

Johnson believes that marijuana should be legalized, regulated, and taxed, "just like tobacco."[45] ...

Johnson does not advocate outright legalization of other drugs.[7][45] Instead, he believes other drugs should be treated as a health problem rather than a criminal justice problem.[7]

Treating drugs as a health problem sounds a lot like shifting a big burden to private insurers.

Johnson also seems to have a big regulatory and tax burden in mind for weed, "just like tobacco."

Maybe a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, and Marijuana?

[southLA]

I may just be in college and be around it more, but the movement seems to be building steam. I don't smoke the herb, just an observation