jefferiah

No, I never said that drinking hurt his writing. But the fact that he was "influential" and a "drinker" does nothing to suggest that drinking does not impair. I don't know about Daniel Dafoe--whether he drank or not. But Mr. Poe did and you may have undermined his influence. Some people consider him the father of the modern mystery novel. Alot of influential writers were drinkers, that does not mean that its safe to drive while drinking. Since there are relatively few fatal writing or jazz improvization accidents we generally don't worry about this sort of thing. Sigmund Freud was definitely influential. Does this mean its safe to operate heavy equipment under the influence of cocaine?

LET'S GO PATRIOTS!!

Fair enough. So does this mean that when Mr. Dafoe had a few swigs of the ole fire water he didnt get drunk?

Yeah, its a great thing. That's why all those parents in Florida are putting their kids on rafts so they can get to Cuba.

Are there not terrorists who are Muslims? The bad guy in some movies is Russian. Potential human rights case.

But in a court of law this would be thrown out along with other cases which are out to lunch and therefore less costs would be incurred.

Saying that Louis Armstrong had an influence, I will most definitely agree with that. You said he practically invented modern music. Sorry, if you dont see the difference there, you are impaired right now. Once again though influence has nothing to do with motor skill impairment. Edgar Allan Poe had an influence on future writers. That does not mean he invented modern lit, and it certainly doesnt mean that his alcoholism had no effect on his motor skills.

No it isnt. One could basically point to any musician in any time period and say he was part of a chain reaction of events bigger than himself and played a part in the development of what we have today. To say he invented modern music is highly subjective. And the fact that his singing style was different does nothing to suggest that pot does not impair, while the majority of authorities to this day still say that marijuana does indeed slow reaction time. Some people might say that Kurt Cobain changed music as well, does nothing for the heroin lobby or the stick guns in your mouth lobby.

No it is a prime example of the same thing you did.

Well those cases you mentioned are entertained by actual courts of law. Do you think this would hold up there? You asked how it was different. I told you.

Personally I'd say the fellow who composed the Brandenburg Concertos kicks Louis Armstrongs ass all over the place when it comes to music.

deleted

It seems you do not understand the definition of slavery. A slave is a person you own. That means that they are always accountable to their masters. In this case the fellow entered into a employment under a set of terms that he was aware of. If this fellow wants to smoke pot he does not have to apply for a job that does testing. No one is forcing him to do anything. He knew going into the job that they did regular drug tests. He entered into the employment on those terms, thought he would get away with it, and now that he is caught he has decided that he does not like the terms he agreed to. He can leave the job if he does not like the rules. A slave cant. He must be freed.

No actually you did not really adequately answer, M Dancer. What you said was that it would have been impossible for Louis Armstrong to have played better, and that he invented modern music. None of that is established scientific fact. The idea that he invented modern music is simply opinion. I am sure there would be many people who would disagree. Musical virtuosos existed long before pot gained popularity among the jazz crowd.

Are these generally tried by the Human Rights Commission?

If Mohammed, the Terrorist Pedophile Prophet, feels that he has been defamed by the cartoons and that he has lost business because of the Danish depictions of himself, let him sue.

The complainant is full of poo as well. But here is the thing: a person can make a complaint which is full of poo, and the HRC's don't bother to dismiss it, which in turn means a person can be subjected to a trial and is forced to hire a lawyer, etc etc. That's full of poo. And so are you.

Lol. You people just don't get it. When I watch South Park it does not make me hate the thousands of groups they poke fun at. But the attempt by some of the Islamic community to undermine western free speech......that is very likely to expose muslims to hatred or contempt. If somebody feels Mohammed was a pedophile and wants to draw him as such he should have that right. That has nothing to do with promoting hatred against Muslims. It has a lot to do with Muslims demanding that non-Muslims show respect for a man they don't revere.

I agree that this is a common effect of alcohol---loss of inhibition. And having smoked pot in days gone by, I am well aware that a high person is generally more capable in motor skills than one who is drunk. Nonetheless, that does not change the fact that I fully believe pot does have some degree of impairment, and I fully respect that many employers do not want people high at work (nor do they want them drunk for that matter).

While I understand what you say saying here, the problem I have with this, is that it could "slip" originally along the degree of criminality which neccesitates a chip. And then incrementally it becomes a security issue with smaller and smaller things. This seems to be the trend with many things. I also understand that it might not, but I am not comfortable with this personally, and this is why I support Kuzadd here.

And I don't think the jazz community does drug testing anyways. You know Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder were quite capable musicians as well, but I won't hire them as cab drivers.

Depends on what you consider the best first off. Secondly, since jazz people smoked pot and non-jazz people did not, it would stand to reason that jazz people play better jazz then people who dont play jazz at all. Don't you think. And skill wise, that is certainly not true anymore.

Well yes and I am sure Vincent LeCavalier could beat me at one on one ice hockey if he were stoned too.

But there is no such test. In the interests of keeping sober environment, this is all they have.

First off I said I probably would not care, myself. And I never said anything about smoking pot on your own time. I said in the case of being under the influence of either drug, I would rather an employee show up after a coffee and a cigarette than to be high at work. I think an employer has a right to be concerned about people being in "altered states" at work, if that makes him uncomfortable. That is the perogative of one who owns the business and thus supplies the position of employment, and can just as easily supply it to someone else he is more comfortable employing. If you don't like the terms of his employment you can work elsewhere. I understand what you say about private life and using pot on your own time. The problem with that is that there is no test for how long ago you smoked a joint. But because the testing we have is all we have, that means you can be terminated for having drugs in the bloodstream. And not all jobs do testing. All these things you are telling me pot is proven to do, are mostly from pro-pot sites. It depends on what source your studies come from. Pot is smoked so there is no way it is healthier than cigarettes. In fact most people will tell you the smoke is much harsher and also the manner in which it is inhaled is harsher as well. The redeeming factor here is that no one smokes a pack of joints a day. Where one might say tobacco contains 4000 chemicals and pot contains this many. Thats immaterial. Because the quantity in which each chemical is present is also a big factor. Marijuana is pretty high on the tar, for instance. Anyways, tobacco smokers make good employees. I am sure that many pot smokers do as well. The problem is, alot of employers do not want people at work with "altered-states of mind". Whether or not you agree with that or feel it is important within a company you own is your business. But if someone has a problem with employees showing up for work in mind altered states in a business they run, I think that is their business. So if you like to smoke pot you have to face the reality that many a trucking company will not hire you. Cannabis is also linked to major depression in recent studies. Mind altering drugs usually work by affecting the production or the uptake of neurotransmitters in the brain---as you mentioned with dopamine. These are the same chemicals linked to most clinical mental problems. There are many studies which provide counter evidence to the pro-pot studies. But alot of these things you are saying are not really proven. The jury is still out. You might say that certain studies suggest pot may be good for this or that. But that is not the same as evidence being concrete. You could say that LSD has a low toxicity as well when the dose to get high is stacked against the dose needed to cause physical damage. Nonetheless, most employers dont want people showing up tripping. Despite the pro-pot studies which say people drive better on marijuana and such, the mainstream of studies suggest that marijuana indeed slows reaction time. And at certain jobs where safety is a huge issue, I have no problem with the employer doing regular testing.