Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm with Montrovant!
Definition of a drug:
a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
Nope. ANY ingested substance has a physiological effect. I for one achieve a state of euphoria upon ingesting eggplant parmesean. A "drug" has to be either manufactured in a chemical lab or extracted/distilled from some other entity (e.g. cocaine from coca). But the original plant is simply the original plant.
Why the distinction matters is this: Yahoos like shoot-em-in-the face Katz and the United Snakes government deliberately lie about this substance for the purpose of social control, and referring to it as "drug", "narcotic", "addictive" --- all of which are equally bullshitious ---- are tools to that propaganda end.
In other words it's dishonest, and it's deliberately dishonest for a dishonest purpose. And that will not stand.
I’ll go with the dictionary and not your opinion on this matter.
I’ll go with the dictionary and not your opinion on this matter.Nope. … A "drug" has to be either manufactured in a chemical lab or extracted/distilled from some other entity (e.g. cocaine from coca). But the original plant is simply the original plant.Definition of a drug:
a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
What chemical process does it undergo for use?Saying marijuana isn't a drug doesn't mean it isn't a drug.
And what pharmaceutical company has a patent on it?
Actually a wag who's on record calling for pot smokers to be shot in the face sitting on a message board claiming it IS a "drug", doesn't make it a "drug". Asserter has the burden of proof --- where is it?
You can call a peanut a "nut" but that doesn't make it not-a-legume. You can buy a box of Grape Nuts, rotsa ruck finding either one in there.
Just because grass comes from a plant, doesn't mean its not a drug. Morphine and smack come from the poppy, alcohol comes from grain, both are still definitely drugs.
Yeah actually it does mean that. Morphine and heroin are processed from the poppy --- those are drugs. The poppy itself, is not.
And I see what (else) you weasel-worded there --- cannabis ("grass") doesn't "come from" a plant ---- it IS the plant.
"And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so." ---- Genesis, 1:30
How about marijuana contains a drug and move on from there?
I'm with Montrovant!
Definition of a drug:
a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
Nope. ANY ingested substance has a physiological effect. I for one achieve a state of euphoria upon ingesting eggplant parmesean. A "drug" has to be either manufactured in a chemical lab or extracted/distilled from some other entity (e.g. cocaine from coca). But the original plant is simply the original plant.
Why the distinction matters is this: Yahoos like shoot-em-in-the face Katz and the United Snakes government deliberately lie about this substance for the purpose of social control, and referring to it as "drug", "narcotic", "addictive" --- all of which are equally bullshitious ---- are tools to that propaganda end.
In other words it's dishonest, and it's deliberately dishonest for a dishonest purpose. And that will not stand.
I’ll go with the dictionary and not your opinion on this matter.
And you'll ignore the bolded part, which means, again, dishonest.
I’ll go with the dictionary and not your opinion on this matter.Nope. … A "drug" has to be either manufactured in a chemical lab or extracted/distilled from some other entity (e.g. cocaine from coca). But the original plant is simply the original plant.Definition of a drug:
a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
Is there any credible dictionary that contains any definition of “drug” which includes a requirement such as “has to be either manufactured in a chemical lab or extracted/distilled from some other entity (e.g. cocaine from coca)”? I very much doubt it.
Pogo is just playing the kind of stupid, intellectually-dishonest word games that he always does; that pretty much define him.
Drugs are made by drug companies, whether legal ones or illegal, in labs. They don't occur in Nature.
I'm with Montrovant!
Definition of a drug:
a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
Nope. ANY ingested substance has a physiological effect. I for one achieve a state of euphoria upon ingesting eggplant parmesean. A "drug" has to be either manufactured in a chemical lab or extracted/distilled from some other entity (e.g. cocaine from coca). But the original plant is simply the original plant.
Why the distinction matters is this: Yahoos like shoot-em-in-the face Katz and the United Snakes government deliberately lie about this substance for the purpose of social control, and referring to it as "drug", "narcotic", "addictive" --- all of which are equally bullshitious ---- are tools to that propaganda end.
In other words it's dishonest, and it's deliberately dishonest for a dishonest purpose. And that will not stand.
I’ll go with the dictionary and not your opinion on this matter.
And you'll ignore the bolded part, which means, again, dishonest.
No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.
Drugs are made by drug companies, whether legal ones or illegal, in labs. They don't occur in Nature.
So, LSD isn't a drug then? It's naturally present in the ergot fungus, and those who consume that fungus experience its effects.
Same, then, with opium, naturally occurring in the seed pods of poppy plants?
I'm with Montrovant!
Definition of a drug:
a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
Nope. ANY ingested substance has a physiological effect. I for one achieve a state of euphoria upon ingesting eggplant parmesean. A "drug" has to be either manufactured in a chemical lab or extracted/distilled from some other entity (e.g. cocaine from coca). But the original plant is simply the original plant.
Why the distinction matters is this: Yahoos like shoot-em-in-the face Katz and the United Snakes government deliberately lie about this substance for the purpose of social control, and referring to it as "drug", "narcotic", "addictive" --- all of which are equally bullshitious ---- are tools to that propaganda end.
In other words it's dishonest, and it's deliberately dishonest for a dishonest purpose. And that will not stand.
I’ll go with the dictionary and not your opinion on this matter.
And you'll ignore the bolded part, which means, again, dishonest.
No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.
Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.
I'm with Montrovant!
Definition of a drug:
a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
Nope. ANY ingested substance has a physiological effect. I for one achieve a state of euphoria upon ingesting eggplant parmesean. A "drug" has to be either manufactured in a chemical lab or extracted/distilled from some other entity (e.g. cocaine from coca). But the original plant is simply the original plant.
Why the distinction matters is this: Yahoos like shoot-em-in-the face Katz and the United Snakes government deliberately lie about this substance for the purpose of social control, and referring to it as "drug", "narcotic", "addictive" --- all of which are equally bullshitious ---- are tools to that propaganda end.
In other words it's dishonest, and it's deliberately dishonest for a dishonest purpose. And that will not stand.
I’ll go with the dictionary and not your opinion on this matter.
And you'll ignore the bolded part, which means, again, dishonest.
No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.
Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.
Nope. ANY ingested substance has a physiological effect. I for one achieve a state of euphoria upon ingesting eggplant parmesean. A "drug" has to be either manufactured in a chemical lab or extracted/distilled from some other entity (e.g. cocaine from coca). But the original plant is simply the original plant.
Why the distinction matters is this: Yahoos like shoot-em-in-the face Katz and the United Snakes government deliberately lie about this substance for the purpose of social control, and referring to it as "drug", "narcotic", "addictive" --- all of which are equally bullshitious ---- are tools to that propaganda end.
In other words it's dishonest, and it's deliberately dishonest for a dishonest purpose. And that will not stand.
I’ll go with the dictionary and not your opinion on this matter.
And you'll ignore the bolded part, which means, again, dishonest.
No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.
Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.
He likes to split hairs, it’s petty and frustrating.
I’ll go with the dictionary and not your opinion on this matter.
And you'll ignore the bolded part, which means, again, dishonest.
No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.
Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.
He likes to split hairs, it’s petty and frustrating.
Sorry I was away doing drugs. Had a YUGE bowl of killer tomato sauce. Even now I am basking in the radiance of its physiological effects. Gotta do that again one of these days.
Somebody asked for another definition of drug, so here's Merriam-Webster:
>>-- that's the entire Merriam-Webster entry number one, unedited. The other two entries are for the verb, and for the dialectal past tense of drag.
Definition of drug
(Entry 1 of 3)
1a: a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication
b according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act2: something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation (see HABITUATION sense 2b), or a marked change in consciousness
(1): a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (see FORMULARY sense 3)
(2): a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of diseaseprescription drugsdrugs for treating high blood pressure
(3): a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body
(4): a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device
// keeping teens off drugs3: a commodity that is not salable or for which there is no demand (see DEMANDentry 1 sense 3a) —used in the phrase drug on the market
// heroin and other hard drugs
4 obsolete : a substance used in dyeing or chemical operations <<
As you can see, cannabis doesn't fit in any of them.
Now I'm spaced out, man. I'm seeing hallucinations of meatballs. Far out.
Nope. ANY ingested substance has a physiological effect. I for one achieve a state of euphoria upon ingesting eggplant parmesean. A "drug" has to be either manufactured in a chemical lab or extracted/distilled from some other entity (e.g. cocaine from coca). But the original plant is simply the original plant.
Why the distinction matters is this: Yahoos like shoot-em-in-the face Katz and the United Snakes government deliberately lie about this substance for the purpose of social control, and referring to it as "drug", "narcotic", "addictive" --- all of which are equally bullshitious ---- are tools to that propaganda end.
In other words it's dishonest, and it's deliberately dishonest for a dishonest purpose. And that will not stand.
I’ll go with the dictionary and not your opinion on this matter.
And you'll ignore the bolded part, which means, again, dishonest.
No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.
Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.
Let’s see how union handles it, however employer has a right to mitigate their losses or potential losses, their is not right to use drugs and work at the employers expense.
And you'll ignore the bolded part, which means, again, dishonest.
No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.
Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.
He likes to split hairs, it’s petty and frustrating.
Sorry I was away doing drugs. Had a YUGE bowl of killer tomato sauce. Even now I am basking in the radiance of its physiological effects. Gotta do that again one of these days.
Somebody asked for another definition of drug, so here's Merriam-Webster:
>>-- that's the entire Merriam-Webster entry number one, unedited. The other two entries are for the verb, and for the dialectal past tense of drag.
Definition of drug
(Entry 1 of 3)
1a: a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication
b according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act2: something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation (see HABITUATION sense 2b), or a marked change in consciousness
(1): a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (see FORMULARY sense 3)
(2): a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of diseaseprescription drugsdrugs for treating high blood pressure
(3): a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body
(4): a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device
// keeping teens off drugs3: a commodity that is not salable or for which there is no demand (see DEMANDentry 1 sense 3a) —used in the phrase drug on the market
// heroin and other hard drugs
4 obsolete : a substance used in dyeing or chemical operations <<
As you can see, cannabis doesn't fit in any of them.
Now I'm spaced out, man. I'm seeing hallucinations of meatballs. Far out.
Dictionary definitions of a word are fine, but aren't really relevant when it comes to the law.
State and local laws about drugs define words like "drug" and "narcotic" which may or may not conform with the dictionary definition. Same with the union contract for the Albertson's associate that got canned.
I’ll go with the dictionary and not your opinion on this matter.
And you'll ignore the bolded part, which means, again, dishonest.
No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.
Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.
Let’s see how union handles it, however employer has a right to mitigate their losses or potential losses, their is not right to use drugs and work at the employers expense.
I don't know if they have a union but it's irrelevant --- the state law declares they cannot fire somebody on the basis they did.
And again --------- there are no "drugs" involved, NOR is there any evidence that he used anything within the workplace or the workday. AGAIN, the test for cannabinoids DOES NOT identify any kind of current intoxication as would, say, a breathalyzer would identify alcohol content in the blood. It can't. What it does indicate is that the subject had some contact with cannabis some time in the last MONTH. That has zero to do with whether he's impaired in the present.
And AGAIN, if such an employer were actually genuinely interested in worker impairment and workplace safety, they could easily administer a simple reflex test at the start of the shift that would identify ANY such impairment whether from a legal drug, an illegal drug, cannabis, alcohol, creeping illness the worker may or may not be aware of, fatigue, distraction by personal issues, or any other cause, and they would have their answer instantly and they would spend less money doing it and they would be honest about it.
But that's not what they do, is it.
Ever see an employer administering breathalyzer tests to everybody as they come in? Because I worked with an alcoholic who was schnockered every day (and everybody knew it) --- and he was a truck driver. So this is what hypocrisy looks like.
SEE the context. What's going on here is institutional behavior control, right down to "what you're doing at home in your off time". Would you kneel down if an employer insisted they could read all your emails and listen in on all your phone calls? How 'bout if they made installing a camera in your bedroom a condition of employment?
This is the same thing.
I’ll go with the dictionary and not your opinion on this matter.
And you'll ignore the bolded part, which means, again, dishonest.
No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.
Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.
Let’s see how union handles it, however employer has a right to mitigate their losses or potential losses, their is not right to use drugs and work at the employers expense.
I don't know if they have a union but it's irrelevant --- the state law declares they cannot fire somebody on the basis they did.
And again --------- there are no "drugs" involved, NOR is there any evidence that he used anything within the workplace or the workday. AGAIN, the test for cannabinoids DOES NOT identify any kind of current intoxication as would, say, a breathalyzer would identify alcohol content in the blood. It can't. What it does indicate is that the subject had some contact with cannabis some time in the last MONTH. That has zero to do with whether he's impaired in the present.
And AGAIN, if such an employer were actually genuinely interested in worker impairment and workplace safety, they could easily administer a simple reflex test at the start of the shift that would identify ANY such impairment whether from a legal drug, an illegal drug, cannabis, alcohol, creeping illness the worker may or may not be aware of, fatigue, distraction by personal issues, or any other cause, and they would have their answer instantly and they would spend less money doing it and they would be honest about it.
But that's not what they do, is it.
Ever see an employer administering breathalyzer tests to everybody as they come in? Because I worked with an alcoholic who was schnockered every day (and everybody knew it) --- and he was a truck driver. So this is what hypocrisy looks like.
SEE the context. What's going on here is institutional behavior control, right down to "what you're doing at home in your off time". Would you kneel down if an employer insisted they could read all your emails and listen in on all your phone calls? How 'bout if they made installing a camera in your bedroom a condition of employment?
This is the same thing.
And you'll ignore the bolded part, which means, again, dishonest.
No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.
Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.
Let’s see how union handles it, however employer has a right to mitigate their losses or potential losses, their is not right to use drugs and work at the employers expense.
I don't know if they have a union but it's irrelevant --- the state law declares they cannot fire somebody on the basis they did.
And again --------- there are no "drugs" involved, NOR is there any evidence that he used anything within the workplace or the workday. AGAIN, the test for cannabinoids DOES NOT identify any kind of current intoxication as would, say, a breathalyzer would identify alcohol content in the blood. It can't. What it does indicate is that the subject had some contact with cannabis some time in the last MONTH. That has zero to do with whether he's impaired in the present.
And AGAIN, if such an employer were actually genuinely interested in worker impairment and workplace safety, they could easily administer a simple reflex test at the start of the shift that would identify ANY such impairment whether from a legal drug, an illegal drug, cannabis, alcohol, creeping illness the worker may or may not be aware of, fatigue, distraction by personal issues, or any other cause, and they would have their answer instantly and they would spend less money doing it and they would be honest about it.
But that's not what they do, is it.
Ever see an employer administering breathalyzer tests to everybody as they come in? Because I worked with an alcoholic who was schnockered every day (and everybody knew it) --- and he was a truck driver. So this is what hypocrisy looks like.
SEE the context. What's going on here is institutional behavior control, right down to "what you're doing at home in your off time". Would you kneel down if an employer insisted they could read all your emails and listen in on all your phone calls? How 'bout if they made installing a camera in your bedroom a condition of employment?
This is the same thing.
I don’t give a damn what the state law is, they have a right to limit risk and if that person got hurt at work, he would most certainly sue the employer because he was a dumb shit.
No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.
Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.
Let’s see how union handles it, however employer has a right to mitigate their losses or potential losses, their is not right to use drugs and work at the employers expense.
I don't know if they have a union but it's irrelevant --- the state law declares they cannot fire somebody on the basis they did.
And again --------- there are no "drugs" involved, NOR is there any evidence that he used anything within the workplace or the workday. AGAIN, the test for cannabinoids DOES NOT identify any kind of current intoxication as would, say, a breathalyzer would identify alcohol content in the blood. It can't. What it does indicate is that the subject had some contact with cannabis some time in the last MONTH. That has zero to do with whether he's impaired in the present.
And AGAIN, if such an employer were actually genuinely interested in worker impairment and workplace safety, they could easily administer a simple reflex test at the start of the shift that would identify ANY such impairment whether from a legal drug, an illegal drug, cannabis, alcohol, creeping illness the worker may or may not be aware of, fatigue, distraction by personal issues, or any other cause, and they would have their answer instantly and they would spend less money doing it and they would be honest about it.
But that's not what they do, is it.
Ever see an employer administering breathalyzer tests to everybody as they come in? Because I worked with an alcoholic who was schnockered every day (and everybody knew it) --- and he was a truck driver. So this is what hypocrisy looks like.
SEE the context. What's going on here is institutional behavior control, right down to "what you're doing at home in your off time". Would you kneel down if an employer insisted they could read all your emails and listen in on all your phone calls? How 'bout if they made installing a camera in your bedroom a condition of employment?
This is the same thing.
I don’t give a damn what the state law is, they have a right to limit risk and if that person got hurt at work, he would most certainly sue the employer because he was a dumb shit.
But the state does. And it doesn't allow this.
We posted this back in 101 and apparently it was ignored but it's not going away. Still looks like this:
>> Section 36-2813 of the AMMA reads, in part:They're not allowed to fire him for that test. Simple as that.
B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:
1. The person’s status as a cardholder.
2. A registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment. <<
And AGAIN --- "risk" is not in play here at all, because, AGAIN --- the piss test does not, and can not, establish impairment. And that simple fact is not going away either.
Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.
Let’s see how union handles it, however employer has a right to mitigate their losses or potential losses, their is not right to use drugs and work at the employers expense.
I don't know if they have a union but it's irrelevant --- the state law declares they cannot fire somebody on the basis they did.
And again --------- there are no "drugs" involved, NOR is there any evidence that he used anything within the workplace or the workday. AGAIN, the test for cannabinoids DOES NOT identify any kind of current intoxication as would, say, a breathalyzer would identify alcohol content in the blood. It can't. What it does indicate is that the subject had some contact with cannabis some time in the last MONTH. That has zero to do with whether he's impaired in the present.
And AGAIN, if such an employer were actually genuinely interested in worker impairment and workplace safety, they could easily administer a simple reflex test at the start of the shift that would identify ANY such impairment whether from a legal drug, an illegal drug, cannabis, alcohol, creeping illness the worker may or may not be aware of, fatigue, distraction by personal issues, or any other cause, and they would have their answer instantly and they would spend less money doing it and they would be honest about it.
But that's not what they do, is it.
Ever see an employer administering breathalyzer tests to everybody as they come in? Because I worked with an alcoholic who was schnockered every day (and everybody knew it) --- and he was a truck driver. So this is what hypocrisy looks like.
SEE the context. What's going on here is institutional behavior control, right down to "what you're doing at home in your off time". Would you kneel down if an employer insisted they could read all your emails and listen in on all your phone calls? How 'bout if they made installing a camera in your bedroom a condition of employment?
This is the same thing.
I don’t give a damn what the state law is, they have a right to limit risk and if that person got hurt at work, he would most certainly sue the employer because he was a dumb shit.
But the state does. And it doesn't allow this.
We posted this back in 101 and apparently it was ignored but it's not going away. Still looks like this:
>> Section 36-2813 of the AMMA reads, in part:They're not allowed to fire him for that test. Simple as that.
B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:
1. The person’s status as a cardholder.
2. A registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment. <<
And AGAIN --- "risk" is not in play here at all, because, AGAIN --- the piss test does not, and can not, establish impairment. And that simple fact is not going away either.
Like I said, we will see how it plays out, the same as I said before. No difference in my stand.
