Offline
dude. if i was paying $10,000.00 per hour, i would expect a better response. nerd.
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_site_using_safari
dude. if i was paying $10,000.00 per hour, i would expect a better response. nerd.
Pfffft even a hack like Giuliani gets 20K. SC500 is actually short for SuperchuckCharge500k.dude. if i was paying $10,000.00 per hour, i would expect a better response. nerd.
Pfffft even a hack like Giuliani gets 20K. SC500 is actually short for SuperchuckCharge500k.
I only accept Doge Coin.
It’s not uncommon for people to “doctor shop” and have multiple scripts simultaneously from different doctors who have no idea.
Pfffft even a hack like Giuliani gets 20K. SC500 is actually short for SuperchuckCharge500k.
None of this legalization shirt is going to matter much unless they also make it illegal for employers to test for it.
I see you're point and I pretty much agree with you. My understanding, at least with my California based company, is that unless you show up to work looking / acting high, they can't test you once you work for them. With regard to pre-employment screening, agreed that a CDL driver has a way different outlook than the local grocery store worker. I agree that the "when" is a good point that bears fleshing out with testing. Just because at some point in the last 6 weeks I may have been exposed to THC, whether on occasion of second hand smoke or my own daily use it doesn't give the real story.They'll never do that, at least not for recreational. The key there is in the testing - science needs to come up with a way to provide a more precise test for when the user actually consumed the marijuana.
But I think it's an overstatement to say it won't matter unless they did. I'm not sure what percentage of employers test for weed but it's nowhere near 100% and when you take out the ones that only do a pre-employment screen, I think the number goes down quite a bit from there.
Another thing that is evolving is what an employer does with a positive test. If the result came from a random or scheduled screen, and not an incident, and the employee is otherwise in good standing and indicated that the marijuana use was legal (by state law) and off-duty, there's no reason why that employee has to be disciplined. Of course, the employee's job matters - someone doing skilled tasks in a dangerous environment (e.g. operating construction equipment) likely brings a different analysis than the IT guy.
They'll never do that, at least not for recreational. The key there is in the testing - science needs to come up with a way to provide a more precise test for when the user actually consumed the marijuana.
But I think it's an overstatement to say it won't matter unless they did. I'm not sure what percentage of employers test for weed but it's nowhere near 100% and when you take out the ones that only do a pre-employment screen, I think the number goes down quite a bit from there.
Another thing that is evolving is what an employer does with a positive test. If the result came from a random or scheduled screen, and not an incident, and the employee is otherwise in good standing and indicated that the marijuana use was legal (by state law) and off-duty, there's no reason why that employee has to be disciplined. Of course, the employee's job matters - someone doing skilled tasks in a dangerous environment (e.g. operating construction equipment) likely brings a different analysis than the IT guy.
yes.I actually think lawyering would be less stressful, more ethical, and more professional if all lawyers were required to be stoned.
Most things, actually.I actually think lawyering would be less stressful, more ethical, and more professional if all lawyers were required to be stoned.