Walmart fires worker over medical marijuana

[DiamondDave]

Not if you've got sinus cancer and a painful brain tumor.
Wonder if the real reason for firing him was to avoid paying health insurance on a cancer patient?

marinol
oxycodone

the fda will never approve a drug that is delivered by the methode of smoking... which is inaccurate and quite dangerous in itself...

the whole medical marijuana movement is nothing more than a scam by drug loving junkies

There are machines that filter out the bad stuff from smoking it, nso that's not an issue. Plus you can eat it

There are nebulizers that allow for the inhalation of the marinol product... that does not give the narcotic effect of the marijuana... and marinol gives the effects supposedly intended by the 'medical marijuana' freaks.. yet they still insist on the drug itself.. why?? because it is about the high.. not about the medical need

do you support opium use (smoked or otherwise) even though we have medical opiates that do the job safer and with less side effects??

 

[gcableguy]

to this manifold idiot even tho I don't think Jesus was Cuacasian GET USE TO THE HEAT OF YOUR MANIFOLD BECAUSE YOU WILLLLLL!!!!! BURN IN HELL.

 

[manifold]

to this manifold idiot even tho I don't think Jesus was Cuacasian GET USE TO THE HEAT OF YOUR MANIFOLD BECAUSE YOU WILLLLLL!!!!! BURN IN HELL.

Wow, your first post ever was to express concern for my salvation.

I just don't know how I can ever thank you.

 

[xotoxi]

to this manifold idiot even tho I don't think Jesus was Cuacasian GET USE TO THE HEAT OF YOUR MANIFOLD BECAUSE YOU WILLLLLL!!!!! BURN IN HELL.

Wow, your first post ever was to express concern for my salvation.

I just don't know how I can ever thank you.

I wonder who that joker was.

 

[kwc57]

No.. that would be the stance of an extreme libertarian or anarchist.. but nice try

So define "conservative" for us please. Because where I stand, conservatism in it's purest form is libertarian in nature. If you are for the government acting as a nanny state to tell you what you can and can not do with your body, you are no different from the liberals who want to limit the kinds of fat a restaurant can cook with because it is "bad" for you. For a moment, put your own personal feelings or religious beliefs aside and think purely political. Do you want personal liberty and freedom or government intervention. If a government can tell you that you can't smoke a plant, why can't they tell you that you can't worship in a church or wear blue shirts? None of those things does harm to anyone but possibly the person doing it and the government's job is not to save us from ourselves, but to ensure that we can engage in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No.. because you can have an authoritarian leaning conservative or a libertarian leaning conservative... libertarianism is not inherent by nature to conservatism

As stated.. being a conservative is not being against the government having and enforcing the rules of law

Libertarianism is inherent by nature to liberty.......which modern conservatives pay lip service to championing.

I have no issues with rule of law. Laws are needed withn a society. The question is.......what kind of laws do we need in a nation built on liberty and freedom. Seat belt laws? Helmet laws? Pot laws? Marriage laws? Trans fat laws? Both sides want to tell people how to live and want the government to enforce it, they simply disagree on what items the government should control and enforce. There is the ongoing argument here and elsewhere about whether the founding fathers were 'liberal" or "conservative". They were libertarian in nature more than anything else. Minding your own business and live and let live is far more "conservative" than anything the talking heads preach today.

 

[DiamondDave]

So define "conservative" for us please. Because where I stand, conservatism in it's purest form is libertarian in nature. If you are for the government acting as a nanny state to tell you what you can and can not do with your body, you are no different from the liberals who want to limit the kinds of fat a restaurant can cook with because it is "bad" for you. For a moment, put your own personal feelings or religious beliefs aside and think purely political. Do you want personal liberty and freedom or government intervention. If a government can tell you that you can't smoke a plant, why can't they tell you that you can't worship in a church or wear blue shirts? None of those things does harm to anyone but possibly the person doing it and the government's job is not to save us from ourselves, but to ensure that we can engage in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No.. because you can have an authoritarian leaning conservative or a libertarian leaning conservative... libertarianism is not inherent by nature to conservatism

As stated.. being a conservative is not being against the government having and enforcing the rules of law

Libertarianism is inherent by nature to liberty.......which modern conservatives pay lip service to championing.

I have no issues with rule of law. Laws are needed withn a society. The question is.......what kind of laws do we need in a nation built on liberty and freedom. Seat belt laws? Helmet laws? Pot laws? Marriage laws? Trans fat laws? Both sides want to tell people how to live and want the government to enforce it, they simply disagree on what items the government should control and enforce. There is the ongoing argument here and elsewhere about whether the founding fathers were 'liberal" or "conservative". They were libertarian in nature more than anything else. Minding your own business and live and let live is far more "conservative" than anything the talking heads preach today.

Do you not understand the 2 dimensional political spectrum and not just the linear 'right' and 'left'?

 

[kwc57]

No.. because you can have an authoritarian leaning conservative or a libertarian leaning conservative... libertarianism is not inherent by nature to conservatism

As stated.. being a conservative is not being against the government having and enforcing the rules of law

Libertarianism is inherent by nature to liberty.......which modern conservatives pay lip service to championing.

I have no issues with rule of law. Laws are needed withn a society. The question is.......what kind of laws do we need in a nation built on liberty and freedom. Seat belt laws? Helmet laws? Pot laws? Marriage laws? Trans fat laws? Both sides want to tell people how to live and want the government to enforce it, they simply disagree on what items the government should control and enforce. There is the ongoing argument here and elsewhere about whether the founding fathers were 'liberal" or "conservative". They were libertarian in nature more than anything else. Minding your own business and live and let live is far more "conservative" than anything the talking heads preach today.

Do you not understand the 2 dimensional political spectrum and not just the linear 'right' and 'left'?

Yes I do. Far too much of today's political discourse only takes the linear into consideration with all of the partisan bickering that goes on. 24 hour cable news, the internet and talk radio drive much of today's political divide. Hell, one day on a political message board shows you that all most people want to do is insult the other side and score points for their side......rather than discuss the issue like two rational people. In reality, there is a sliding scale of personal belief along the spectrum. That is why you have self professed conservatives who are pro-choice and self professed liberals who are pro-life as just one example. People can spout ideology all they want until their personal life is touched by an issue and then they use their personal experience, reason, logic and beliefs to arrive at what they "really" believe.

As for me, I don't want a "liberal" passing legislation telling me I can't eat trans fat or a "conservative" passing legislation telling me I can't smoke pot. It is my life and none of their damned business as it doesn't affect them in the least. I don't need them saving me from myself. I try to limit the fats I eat and I've never used pot in my life.......by MY choice......not Uncle Sam's. My point was that there really is little difference between liberals and conservatives (as defined by today's standards) as they both want the government to tell you what to do. But it is the conservative side that squaks all the freedom and liberty lip service and then legislates and governs contrary to it. Unfortunately, the liberals actually attempt to do what they say.

 

[DiamondDave]

Libertarianism is inherent by nature to liberty.......which modern conservatives pay lip service to championing.

I have no issues with rule of law. Laws are needed withn a society. The question is.......what kind of laws do we need in a nation built on liberty and freedom. Seat belt laws? Helmet laws? Pot laws? Marriage laws? Trans fat laws? Both sides want to tell people how to live and want the government to enforce it, they simply disagree on what items the government should control and enforce. There is the ongoing argument here and elsewhere about whether the founding fathers were 'liberal" or "conservative". They were libertarian in nature more than anything else. Minding your own business and live and let live is far more "conservative" than anything the talking heads preach today.

Do you not understand the 2 dimensional political spectrum and not just the linear 'right' and 'left'?

Yes I do. Far too much of today's political discourse only takes the linear into consideration with all of the partisan bickering that goes on. 24 hour cable news, the internet and talk radio drive much of today's political divide. Hell, one day on a political message board shows you that all most people want to do is insult the other side and score points for their side......rather than discuss the issue like two rational people. In reality, there is a sliding scale of personal belief along the spectrum. That is why you have self professed conservatives who are pro-choice and self professed liberals who are pro-life as just one example. People can spout ideology all they want until their personal life is touched by an issue and then they use their personal experience, reason, logic and beliefs to arrive at what they "really" believe.

As for me, I don't want a "liberal" passing legislation telling me I can't eat trans fat or a "conservative" passing legislation telling me I can't smoke pot. It is my life and none of their damned business as it doesn't affect them in the least. I don't need them saving me from myself. I try to limit the fats I eat and I've never used pot in my life.......by MY choice......not Uncle Sam's. My point was that there really is little difference between liberals and conservatives (as defined by today's standards) as they both want the government to tell you what to do. But it is the conservative side that squaks all the freedom and liberty lip service and then legislates and governs contrary to it. Unfortunately, the liberals actually attempt to do what they say.

It depends on if you are referring to laws or if you are referring to the use of government to equalize outcome and provide thru redistribution... there are major differences between the 2 sides of the left and right, just as there are major differences between the authoritarians and the libertarians, even though you can and do have similarities from the other plane of the political spectrum

 

[Modbert]

You know, I remember a certain someone mentioning something about Libertarianism and Conservatism.

Now who was it?

Oh, right.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

But who said it? I remember it being some Republican hero.

Oh right.



Republicans today can't even keep up with their hero.

 

[DiamondDave]

Guess you did not understand there was much explanation beyond the first sentence....

Again... many things in conservatism can be shared with Libertarianism on the 2 dimensional spectrum... but as seen with the no government, or no laws against anything the individual wants to do to themselves crowd, not everything in libertarianism will be held in conservatism

nice try, though

 

[Harry Dresden]

Medical pot is a scam.

Not if you've got sinus cancer and a painful brain tumor.
Wonder if the real reason for firing him was to avoid paying health insurance on a cancer patient?

I doubt it... odds are he was part time...

But Pot is amongst the worst thing that a cancer patient could ingest; its suppresses the immune system some FIERCE... thus leaving the individual subject to secondary infections.

Medicinal Pot is a ridiculous scam.

Bull shit.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Not if you've got sinus cancer and a painful brain tumor.
Wonder if the real reason for firing him was to avoid paying health insurance on a cancer patient?

I doubt it... odds are he was part time...

But Pot is amongst the worst thing that a cancer patient could ingest; its suppresses the immune system some FIERCE... thus leaving the individual subject to secondary infections.

Medicinal Pot is a ridiculous scam.

That's a crock of shit. It provides them pain relieve and helps overcome stomach and appetite issue caused by most cancer treatments.

I have seen some links talking about habitual use influencing immune system, but immediate? I doubt it but would love to see the study that shows that

for once im with ya Gregg....i know 2 people,well now 1....who would tell Pi he is full of shit....the shit the Docs gave them did nothing....pot...relieved a bunch of stuff that the Merinol did not do well with at all...educate yourself Pub....dont just repeat the Anti pot shit out there....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Look at all these wonderful conservatives wanting to make laws about what someone else does with their own bodies.

Oh the irony.

its called not knowing what you are talking about,just repeating the usual Bullshit from the anti-pot people...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Medical pot is a scam.

Not if you've got sinus cancer and a painful brain tumor.
Wonder if the real reason for firing him was to avoid paying health insurance on a cancer patient?

California sure has a lot of cancer patients!

It's a fucking scam and only an idiot would think otherwise. Ever heard of Marinol?

does not work as good....this coming from those who have had to use both.....and its only a scam when a non-critical person is getting it....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Aw the old weed is better than alcohol argument. A drug, is a drug, is a drug.

thats because it is....Duh....

 

[Harry Dresden]

How about crack? Cocaine, other hard drugs and those not so hard drugs? Moron.

Rgs...there is a big difference between pot and those you mention...big difference....

 

[George Costanza]

Pot should be legal.

That says it all.

(Hi from an old pal at you-know-where . . . different name there.)

 

[Modbert]

its called not knowing what you are talking about,just repeating the usual Bullshit from the anti-pot people...

Oh I agree. They give real conservatives a bad name definitely.

 

[Harry Dresden]

its called not knowing what you are talking about,just repeating the usual Bullshit from the anti-pot people...

Oh I agree. They give real conservatives a bad name definitely.

well i have run into some "real" so called liberals that seem to believe the same shit...its just expressed a different way....but same kinda shit....

 

[86DuDE]

In Wal-Mart's defense it is clear that such an employee would be a considerable potential liability for the company. The amount of frivolous law suits, feinged accidents, etc in the Wal-Mart environment are staggering enough without having unfortunate accidents on behalf of high associates.