Some sanity in the politics of drugs.

[SwimExpert]

Colorado won't say they nullified federal law, but yes I'm afraid that's exactly what they did. They themselves deemed it a dumb law so they went around it and legalized it for themselves. That is nullification.

No. That is not nullification. Just because you're too ignorant to comprehend sovereign duality as it applies to federations does not mean that the rest of us have to settle for your misguided redefinitions.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Colorado won't say they nullified federal law, but yes I'm afraid that's exactly what they did. They themselves deemed it a dumb law so they went around it and legalized it for themselves. That is nullification.

No. That is not nullification. Just because you're too ignorant to comprehend sovereign duality as it applies to federations does not mean that the rest of us have to settle for your misguided redefinitions.

What is the difference then? You saying it's not nullification doesn't make it so.

 

[SwimExpert]

Colorado won't say they nullified federal law, but yes I'm afraid that's exactly what they did. They themselves deemed it a dumb law so they went around it and legalized it for themselves. That is nullification.

No. That is not nullification. Just because you're too ignorant to comprehend sovereign duality as it applies to federations does not mean that the rest of us have to settle for your misguided redefinitions.

What is the difference then? You saying it's not nullification doesn't make it so.

I just explained it to you. Why can't you pay attention? Nullification is when a state takes it upon itself to declare a federal law unconstitutional. What Colorado has done is merely to exercise it's sovereign right to decide its own laws.

 

[TooTall]

Colorado won't say they nullified federal law, but yes I'm afraid that's exactly what they did. They themselves deemed it a dumb law so they went around it and legalized it for themselves. That is nullification.

No. That is not nullification. Just because you're too ignorant to comprehend sovereign duality as it applies to federations does not mean that the rest of us have to settle for your misguided redefinitions.

What is the difference then? You saying it's not nullification doesn't make it so.

I just explained it to you. Why can't you pay attention? Nullification is when a state takes it upon itself to declare a federal law unconstitutional. What Colorado has done is merely to exercise it's sovereign right to decide its own laws.

You and I are pissing into the wind and my daddy told me not to do that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Colorado won't say they nullified federal law, but yes I'm afraid that's exactly what they did. They themselves deemed it a dumb law so they went around it and legalized it for themselves. That is nullification.

No. That is not nullification. Just because you're too ignorant to comprehend sovereign duality as it applies to federations does not mean that the rest of us have to settle for your misguided redefinitions.

What is the difference then? You saying it's not nullification doesn't make it so.

I just explained it to you. Why can't you pay attention? Nullification is when a state takes it upon itself to declare a federal law unconstitutional. What Colorado has done is merely to exercise it's sovereign right to decide its own laws.

You say tomato, I say potato.

 

[SwimExpert]

Colorado won't say they nullified federal law, but yes I'm afraid that's exactly what they did. They themselves deemed it a dumb law so they went around it and legalized it for themselves. That is nullification.

No. That is not nullification. Just because you're too ignorant to comprehend sovereign duality as it applies to federations does not mean that the rest of us have to settle for your misguided redefinitions.

What is the difference then? You saying it's not nullification doesn't make it so.

I just explained it to you. Why can't you pay attention? Nullification is when a state takes it upon itself to declare a federal law unconstitutional. What Colorado has done is merely to exercise it's sovereign right to decide its own laws.

You say tomato, I say potato.

Exactly. You are apparently incapable of distinguishing between two things that are not even related to each other in any way whatsoever.

 

[Clementine]

Since alcohol is far far more dangerous, I would assume they will fire anyone they find a photo of holding a drink too.

That would be going too far. Would be idiotic to be fired for holding a wine glass at a wedding.

No employer should put up with an employee showing up to work under the influence of any substance. Smoking is different since it doesn't make you high or impair you.

I think it's bull that employers often fire people because of what is on their social media. None of anyone's business and employers should not have a right to even see them.

 

[SwimExpert]

I think it's bull that employers often fire people because of what is on their social media.

This, I agree with, generally speaking. It's petty for employers to facebook search employees or potential employees. And it's extremely petty when employers try to tell employees that they cannot so much as post a venting rant about a bad day at work, etc. Too many employers nowadays have lost all concept of an appropriate work/life balance. People don't live to serve their employers, they maintain jobs to serve the needs of living. More companies and managers need to remember that.

However, I do think there can be especially egregious examples where a company takes objection to an employee's social media behavior. The PR executive that made sensationally racist comments mid flight about her trip to Africa is a good example. In my line of work, there are many hotel companies who expressly forbid publicly sharing information about high profile guests. These are behaviors that speak directly to a person's ability to perform the vital functions of the job, and strike at extremely important and fundamental values, the violation of which is highly egregious for the employer.

None of anyone's business and employers should not have a right to even see them.

As much as I dislike employer snooping into social media, most of the time I also tend to have little sympathy for people who fall victim to it. Social media is not an inherently private place. You're the one who is choosing to share your words and pictures online for all the world to see. People need to learn how to adjust their privacy settings accordingly. If people choose to use social media platforms that don't afford them the ability to limit privacy, then that's a choice a person makes and they are responsible for the consequences. For myself: 1) I never add current work colleagues to my list; 2) I cannot be found in a facebook search by people not already on my friends list; 3) People cannot view my pictures, posts, or my friends unless they are on my friends list; 4) People cannot tag me or check me in without my approval. Even if an employer managed to find me on facebook, they'd get stonewalled trying to see anything more than my profile picture and my cover picture. It's not at all difficult to set good privacy settings, and people can't be bothered to do so don't get my pity.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Colorado won't say they nullified federal law, but yes I'm afraid that's exactly what they did. They themselves deemed it a dumb law so they went around it and legalized it for themselves. That is nullification.

No. That is not nullification. Just because you're too ignorant to comprehend sovereign duality as it applies to federations does not mean that the rest of us have to settle for your misguided redefinitions.

What is the difference then? You saying it's not nullification doesn't make it so.

I just explained it to you. Why can't you pay attention? Nullification is when a state takes it upon itself to declare a federal law unconstitutional. What Colorado has done is merely to exercise it's sovereign right to decide its own laws.

You say tomato, I say potato.

Exactly. You are apparently incapable of distinguishing between two things that are not even related to each other in any way whatsoever.

Boring.

 

[Clementine]

I think it's bull that employers often fire people because of what is on their social media.

This, I agree with, generally speaking. It's petty for employers to facebook search employees or potential employees. And it's extremely petty when employers try to tell employees that they cannot so much as post a venting rant about a bad day at work, etc. Too many employers nowadays have lost all concept of an appropriate work/life balance. People don't live to serve their employers, they maintain jobs to serve the needs of living. More companies and managers need to remember that.

However, I do think there can be especially egregious examples where a company takes objection to an employee's social media behavior. The PR executive that made sensationally racist comments mid flight about her trip to Africa is a good example. In my line of work, there are many hotel companies who expressly forbid publicly sharing information about high profile guests. These are behaviors that speak directly to a person's ability to perform the vital functions of the job, and strike at extremely important and fundamental values, the violation of which is highly egregious for the employer.

None of anyone's business and employers should not have a right to even see them.

As much as I dislike employer snooping into social media, most of the time I also tend to have little sympathy for people who fall victim to it. Social media is not an inherently private place. You're the one who is choosing to share your words and pictures online for all the world to see. People need to learn how to adjust their privacy settings accordingly. If people choose to use social media platforms that don't afford them the ability to limit privacy, then that's a choice a person makes and they are responsible for the consequences. For myself: 1) I never add current work colleagues to my list; 2) I cannot be found in a facebook search by people not already on my friends list; 3) People cannot view my pictures, posts, or my friends unless they are on my friends list; 4) People cannot tag me or check me in without my approval. Even if an employer managed to find me on facebook, they'd get stonewalled trying to see anything more than my profile picture and my cover picture. It's not at all difficult to set good privacy settings, and people can't be bothered to do so don't get my pity.

Some employers demand your password to social media. I think that's wrong. I am like you and other people who have their privacy settings to allow only friends to see their posts and they have that right. If a person has their profile public, they open themselves up to criticism from others. When you take steps to keep it private and wisely do not add coworkers or your boss, you should be able to express yourself without reprisals.

There are rules against discussing certain job related things, such as customers/patients, and there are clear lines that can get crossed. Those apply at all times, but simply posting memes that generally insult all jobs or even expressing dissatisfaction with your job shouldn't result in you being fired. Neither should expressing religious opinions as long as privacy settings keep it from being public and even then, only those holding public sector jobs should be restricted from posting political views in public. That shouldn't apply to them if their profiles are limited to friends and family. I also wonder about those who go out of their way to snoop into people's lives in hopes of finding something to use against them. Doesn't seem right for people to feel the need to censor themselves out of fear of being spied on.