BajaNomad - Mexican Goverment stupidity at its worst

Mexican Goverment stupidity at its worst

Pages: 1 2 3

The Gull - 12-23-2009 at 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm
Bonus points for whoever can name who quote this: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Keep your bonus points - Ben Franklin

k-rico - 12-23-2009 at 03:46 PM

"if we were to lock up everyone caught with small amounts of dope"

"everyone caught" is the operative phrase.

Fear of penalties is greatly reduced if there is no fear of getting caught.

Almost all consumption of drugs takes place on private property and it's not the type of thing reported to the police.

Selling and buying is riskier but not by much.

Just a thought.

oldlady - 12-23-2009 at 03:49 PM

Happily, for you Packoderm, we have for the last 100 years progressed inexorably on a path of sacrificing aspects of civil liberty for what the progressive movement calls the collective good. In this case instead of redistributing wealth we are talking about the redistribution of safety. The primary purpose of a government is the protection of it's citizens. Mexico is having a difficult time fulfilliing that purpose. The US is at minimum complicit and it's effectivness in protecting from drug related crime has diminished.
Curtailing liberty comes easily when you are talking property...now when it comes to safety it's an over arching concern?

k-rico - 12-23-2009 at 03:50 PM

"and we know what kind of success the world is having addressing the production of poppies in Afghanistan"

the taliban growers are using a b-tchin irrigation system the US built so they could grow wheat or apples or such stuff

Timo1 - 12-23-2009 at 03:52 PM

I guess ole Ben must be turning in his grave....America is loosing freedom due to security at a rampant rate
And so are we that don't look like terrorists ....that don't have a record
But must travel thru the US

Home Grown, Eh?

Bajahowodd - 12-23-2009 at 03:53 PM

What perplexes me is the idea that people think they have to run other people's lives. Where there is no harm done to others, who should care?

The erosion of our liberties does bother me. Army checkpoints in Baja are somehow supposed to thwart drug trafficking. Anyone know how successful that's been. And on a similar subject, and I know I'll get flak on this, just give my e-mail address to MADD, but does anyone share my distaste for the roadblocks aka sobriety checkpoints (sounds so much more benign) our police set up in the name of catching drunk drivers? where is the probable cause needed to have me stop?

Dave - 12-23-2009 at 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
Fear of penalties is greatly reduced if there is no fear of getting caught.

Almost all consumption of drugs takes place on private property and it's not the type of thing reported to the police.

I'd start by giving dealers a free pass. Use them to identify users. It wouldn't take long before dealers were out of business.

Timo1 - 12-23-2009 at 04:01 PM

Bite the hand that feed you???
The stakes would have to be awfully high fo the dealer
and then he's a snitch....You MUST know what happens then

k-rico - 12-23-2009 at 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

I'd start by giving dealers a free pass. Use them to identify users. It wouldn't take long before dealers were out of business.

Hmmm, not bad. You need to find the dealers before you can turn them and once they were known to be narcs, they're done. Naw, that's the old police informant game, doesn't work.

Doesn't need to snitch

Dave - 12-23-2009 at 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timo1
Bite the hand that feed you???
The stakes would have to be awfully high fo the dealer
and then he's a snitch....You MUST know what happens then

You're not offering him a deal and he's free to sell to whomever he wants. Simply bust his customers.

Allow dealers to operate with impunity.

[Edited on 12-23-2009 by Dave]

Timo1 - 12-23-2009 at 04:08 PM

And simply get killed by HIS suppliers Dave

They'll make more

Dave - 12-23-2009 at 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timo1
And simply get killed by HIS suppliers Dave

Trust me.

Timo1 - 12-23-2009 at 04:10 PM

:lol:

I fell into your trap....I'll be more carefull next time

[Edited on 12-23-2009 by Timo1]

k-rico - 12-23-2009 at 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timo1
And simply get killed by HIS suppliers Dave

Or by other users not part of the peace and love ilk when the NARC is identified.

k-rico - 12-23-2009 at 04:16 PM

dave, you're a genius, you got what you want, druggies getting killed by other druggies

sort of like what's happening now

except it's within the user community, NOB

works for me!!

[Edited on 12-23-2009 by k-rico]

Timo1 - 12-23-2009 at 04:20 PM

A "win win" situation

Woooosh - 12-23-2009 at 04:24 PM

Would mandatory, random drug testing in the workplace have an inpact on recreationall drug use? Yes, it already has in companies that use it. But we can't even get companies to verify an employees right-to-work in the USA so far.

DENNIS - 12-23-2009 at 04:31 PM

Before you get rid of this and get rid of that, you'll have to get rid of the Bill Of Rights and the ACLU. In fact, they should be done away with anyway. They're the biggest protectors of criminals we have.

Show of Hands

Bajahowodd - 12-23-2009 at 04:33 PM

Employer drug testing is another example of invading one's privacy without probable cause. If you have an employee who is failing in their job, it's one thing. but the whole idea of randomness forces reliable employees to change their private lifestyle. There are companies who have meddled in the private lives of their employees for years. things like alcohol, sexual activities, Etc. Just like the roadblock thing, if there is no apparent reason other than the idea of intimidation, then it's wrong. Geez. i remember many years ago, working for a large corporation, being told the benefits of Freemasonry. Implicit was the idea that one must become a Mason if they wished to succeed to higher pay grades.

ELINVESTIG8R - 12-23-2009 at 04:39 PM

So Mote It Be Bajahowodd

And Mote To You, David

Bajahowodd - 12-23-2009 at 04:47 PM

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/regius.html

Against it

Dave - 12-23-2009 at 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Employer drug testing is another example of invading one's privacy without probable cause.

It is an invasion of privacy and a waste of resources. Employers should expect employees obey the law. A simple signed agreement will suffice. Break specific laws...lose your job.

Additionally, I would favor all those convicted of a crime have their names entered in a database available to prospective employers. Let employers decide who they wish to hire.

k-rico - 12-23-2009 at 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Employer drug testing is another example of invading one's privacy without probable cause.

Just how long you been out of the U.S. of A??

That's there now.

k-rico - 12-23-2009 at 04:55 PM

ok, ok, maybe not SOP for NY deli operators

Bajahowodd - 12-23-2009 at 04:58 PM

I do believe that anyone convicted of a crime is already in a database. And responsible employers do a criminal check prior to hiring.

Jonesin' for Pastrami, Eh?

Bajahowodd - 12-23-2009 at 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
ok, ok, maybe not SOP for NY deli operators

Packoderm - 12-23-2009 at 05:00 PM

"Additionally, I would favor all those convicted of a crime have their names entered in a database available to prospective employers. Let employers decide who they wish to hire."

That's already the case - depending on the crime. If you park in a disabled spot and make a cripple walk two blocks you get a $445.00 fine, but your name is not entered into the data base, so you can still work. If you are caught with possession of a marijuana joint, it's a maximum of a $100.00 fine, but your name will be in entered into the data base so you will have to stop working and start dealing to support yourself. If you're caught with possession of enough vodka to kill yourself and two other people, there is no fine, and you can keep you job if you're able to sober up. So, the law is uneven at best.

k-rico - 12-23-2009 at 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
I do believe that anyone convicted of a crime is already in a database. And responsible employers do a criminal check prior to hiring.

For $50 anyone can get the police record of anyone else on the Internet. It's public record and the records are pretty much all electronic these days and searchable. It used to take some work to get this info, now the WWW puts at eveyone's fingertips.

Bajahowodd - 12-23-2009 at 05:09 PM

Ain't the computer/digital age grand? I remember when you could get a speeding ticket in Nevada, and California would never know about it. Progress, eh?

Dave - 12-23-2009 at 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
I do believe that anyone convicted of a crime is already in a database. And responsible employers do a criminal check prior to hiring.

With the permission of the prospective employee. A subtle but distinct difference.

What I propose is unfettered public access. A modern day Scarlet Letter.

toneart - 12-23-2009 at 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco

Quote:

Originally posted by Timo1
OK
Here's a question for you
What do you think about Malaysia where DA-DA is death ???
You get caught....you die
any amount
Its even posted at the airports....DA-DA is death

I don't think it would work here. With all the appeals that go with a death sentence it takes about 10 years to execute even the most heinous of murderer. We would need a lot of new prisons just to hold the backlog.

If it came to that, it would be likely such intolerance would also spread to other facets of American life. In that case I'd apply to move to Canada or elsewhere because the U.S. would no longer be America in the sense of the word. I have an even better idea, those who want Singapore or Muslim style justice could just simply move to a suitable country today. Problem solved.

We came very close to this kind of indiscriminate intolerance in very recent years, and the mindset is still hanging around, ready to come back to bite us. Look out!

(Examples to follow).

The drug war is an industry. In fact, all war is big industry. Prison is a big industry and they are filled with not only deserving hard core criminals (good!), but small time drug dealers and users, mostly minorities (not good!).

That is why the ACLU is necessary; to protect us from indiscriminate persecution and the denial of our civil rights. If the NeoCon,Cheney/Palin/Carl Rove (notice I didn't say Bush because he was a weenie) group gets back in, peaceful opposition party protesters will be rounded up. That is what a Police State is. That is what they did in the USSR. That is what they do in Iran. This is the historical pattern of repressive government regimes, and you can project it for us, based on that kind of thinking that is pervasive here. The more they dumb down our educational system and vilify academicians, the more
the Fox News/Limbaugh/Clear Channel Radio lemmings will be produced to fall into lockstep with their jackboots. Don't you ignorant Teabaggers dare tell me about what is the meaning of Freedom!!!

"They" call us (Liberals) anti-American, and yet they were the ones violating our civil rights. They went a long way towards suspending Habeus Corpus. The New York Times opined,"What is at stake (sic)is whether the Supreme Court itself will continue to have a role in defining the balance [of liberty versus security] or whether, as the administration first argued four years ago, the executive branch is to have the final word". And yes, you could make a case for wiretapping on an as needed ...probable cause basis. But they got the phone companies on board to indiscriminately violate everyone's privacy.

I am all for locking up dealers (not users) of hard drugs. Meth is the worst! The users should only be incarcerated if they are caught and prosecuted while committing a crime, such as robbery or burglary.

Pacoderm, I agree with your assessment but I would back off on suggesting that "those who want Singapore or Muslim style justice could just simply move to a suitable country today." That is what "they" were saying to us during the Bush years. Even though there are plenty of "them" on this board, they too are Americans. They have a right to live in the U.S.A and offer their opinions. We just have to be vigilant and not allow "them" to turn our country into a Police State. These are the real "Freedoms" that we do enjoy and they must be forbidden to turn this into a Fascist Gulag.

Now, back to Mexico. I am considering, with interest, David's (elinvest's) map and plan for eradicating these Cartel thugs. I have argued against it. It goes against my philosophical opposition to war. But now, in this string, I asked his opinion as to whether he thinks the Mexican Government has the firepower, the organization, the military intelligence and the willpower to pull it off. I have doubts, but in light of the killings of this innocent family, I concede that something must be done, if possible. The atrocities are getting so horribly unthinkable that it cannot be tolerated any longer. We, the world, cannot stand by while this violence continues. The violence must stop!

If the eradicating sweep that David is advocating is possible (I still have doubts), then swift and total action must be taken NOW! If it can't, then God help the Mexican people.

Flip Flop? Perhaps. I am indeed conflicted about this, but I am changing my mind about the solution. :coolup:

dtbushpilot - 12-23-2009 at 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Employer drug testing is another example of invading one's privacy without probable cause. If you have an employee who is failing in their job, it's one thing. but the whole idea of randomness forces reliable employees to change their private lifestyle. There are companies who have meddled in the private lives of their employees for years. things like alcohol, sexual activities, Etc. Just like the roadblock thing, if there is no apparent reason other than the idea of intimidation, then it's wrong. Geez. i remember many years ago, working for a large corporation, being told the benefits of Freemasonry. Implicit was the idea that one must become a Mason if they wished to succeed to higher pay grades.

Random drug testing by an employer is one of the best deterrent to drug use on or near the job and an important tool to help the employer protect his or her non-drug abusing employees from the dopers. As an employer I take my responsibility to my employees safety very seriously and a safe work environment is essential to keeping qualified employees. When you work in an already potentially dangerous job the notion that your fellow employee could cost you your life because he's stoned is something that most desirable employees won't tolerate....I don't blame them.

At our company we use company wide, periodic drug testing. All employees are called to the lunch room and attendance is documented. Everyone goes through the line and draws a card from the bucket....everyone from the CEO to the floor sweeper. Everyone drawing a "winning card" (10% of those present) goes immediately to the break room where a nurse from an outside testing clinic collects samples. It was terrifying at first because I was afraid that some key employee would fail his test but in time we had fewer and fewer positive test results. Choosing those to be tested in front of everybody made a big impact and I think has helped the occasional drug user decide if its really worth losing their job over.....dt

BTW, any employee can at any time chose not to participate, they are free to gather up their stuff and leave.

[Edited on 12-24-2009 by dtbushpilot]

Packoderm - 12-23-2009 at 05:18 PM

"Pacoderm, I agree with your assessment but I would back off on suggesting that "those who want Singapore or Muslim style justice could just simply move to a suitable country today." That is what "they" were saying to us during the Bush years. Even though there are plenty of "them" on this board, they too are Americans. They have a right to live in the U.S.A and offer their opinions. We just have to be vigilant and not allow "them" to turn our country into a Police State. These are the real "Freedoms" that we do enjoy and they must be forbidden to turn this into a Fascist Gulag."

I already knew that. I was just trying to match them in the game of blowhard.

Packoderm - 12-23-2009 at 05:22 PM

"Random drug testing by an employer is one of the best deterrent to drug use on or near the job and an important tool to help the employer protect his or her non-drug abusing employees from the dopers. As an employer I take my responsibility to my employees safety very seriously and a safe work environment is essential to keeping qualified employees. When you work in an already potentially dangerous job the notion that your fellow employee could cost you your life because he's stoned is something that most desirable employees won't tolerate....I don't blame them.

At our company we use company wide, periodic drug testing. All employees are called to the lunch room and attendance is documented. Everyone goes through the line and draws a card from the bucket....everyone from the CEO to the floor sweeper. Everyone drawing a "winning card" (10% of those present) goes immediately to the break room where a nurse from an outside testing clinic collects samples. It was terrifying at first because I was afraid that some key employee would fail his test but in time we had fewer and fewer positive test results. Choosing those to be tested in front of everybody made a big impact and I think has helped the occasional drug user decide if its really worth losing their job over.....dt"

That could work, but randomly testing a person to find out if they smoked a joint last Friday night is un-American in nature.

Bajahowodd - 12-23-2009 at 05:28 PM

dt- I can honestly understand your environment. But, this testing is used in jobs such as retail and consumer call centers. I cannot grasp justifying control of one's personal life, in the absence of the threat to the safety of others, in order to maintain employment where the employee, by all measurements, is doing a good job.

Tony- Think about it. There are nowhere near the resources to be able to carry out what David has suggested. Mexico is a huge country. It would be like squeezing a balloon in one place. For grins, let's just say that what David proposes succeeds. Has that extinguished demand? Nope. So, other than ridding your beloved Mulege of any threat by nefarious thugs, at the end of the day, someone, somewhere, will fill the void of supply.

How so?

Dave - 12-23-2009 at 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm
randomly testing a person to find out if they smoked a joint last Friday night is un-American in nature.

Isn't smoking a joint on American soil a 'criminal' act? Wouldn't it be un-American not to report it?

Bajahowodd - 12-23-2009 at 05:33 PM

Dave- For someone not living in America, you have to look in the mirror.

Or maybe you are just being a provocateur. I dunno.

tripledigitken - 12-23-2009 at 05:34 PM

Packoderm,

What do you think about the same employee breaking his contract by coming to the workplace under the influence?

Our Company has a similar policy to dt's. We have employees that are driving trucks on the public highways. I understand the owner's decision to limit their liability, and trying to make the workplace a safer environment.

There is nothing "American" about getting loaded and putting others at risk in the workplace.

Ken

Packoderm - 12-23-2009 at 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tripledigitken
Packoderm,

What do you think about the same employee breaking his contract by coming to the workplace under the influence?

Our Company has a similar policy to dt's. We have employees that are driving trucks on the public highways. I understand the owner's decision to limit their liability, and trying to make the workplace a safer environment.

There is nothing "American" about getting loaded and putting others at risk in the workplace.

Ken

No argument here. I'd treat it the same as if somebody showed up drunk.

Packoderm - 12-23-2009 at 05:43 PM

"provocateur"

I have never heard that word before. I Googled it, and it is a bona fide word. I love it - it's a great word.

Packoderm - 12-23-2009 at 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm
randomly testing a person to find out if they smoked a joint last Friday night is un-American in nature.

Isn't smoking a joint on American soil a 'criminal' act? Wouldn't it be un-American not to report it?

I'd list joint smoking as an infraction in the $99.00 fine category - right up with cutting the tags off your mattress but nowhere near as severe of a crime as driving while talking on the cell phone. If you want to go on a mission all day of notifying the authorities for every driver you see talking on a cell phone - that is fine, but make sure you use a hands free headset while making the calls.

Dave - 12-23-2009 at 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Dave- For someone not living in America, you have to look in the mirror.

The cartels primary customer is the guy who smoked that joint last Friday night.

My backyard (Mexico) is getting shot to s**t. I know the cause and have no use for those who tolerate it's continuance.

The cartels don't sell mattresses

Dave - 12-23-2009 at 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm

I'd list joint smoking as an infraction in the $99.00 fine category - right up with cutting the tags off your mattress

k-rico - 12-23-2009 at 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm
randomly testing a person to find out if they smoked a joint last Friday night is un-American in nature.

Isn't smoking a joint on American soil a 'criminal' act? Wouldn't it be un-American not to report it?

no and no

Dude, I just got a scrip from Dr. Feelgood for some indica chronic supernova. DA KINE. Ain't modern medicine great!

toneart - 12-23-2009 at 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
dt- I can honestly understand your environment. But, this testing is used in jobs such as retail and consumer call centers. I cannot grasp justifying control of one's personal life, in the absence of the threat to the safety of others, in order to maintain employment where the employee, by all measurements, is doing a good job.

Tony- Think about it. There are nowhere near the resources to be able to carry out what David has suggested. Mexico is a huge country. It would be like squeezing a balloon in one place. For grins, let's just say that what David proposes succeeds. Has that extinguished demand? Nope. So, other than ridding your beloved Mulege of any threat by nefarious thugs, at the end of the day, someone, somewhere, will fill the void of supply.

I did say I had doubts. I suspect you are right. But if David's plan were to be effective, it would decapitate or greatly diminish and disrupt the various cartels' organization. Regarding those who would fill the void, they would have to practically start over. In the mean time, drugs must be decriminalized, the cartel/pusher middleman profit must be taken out and the U.S. Government must control and tax the supply...just like alcohol. Let the users kill themselves (and be denied healthcare). If they commit crimes, lock them up. Take away the suppliers' profit incentive.

Short of that, the Mexican Government and the Cartels will be cooperatives, and they will lose everything. As it stands, the stupid fence is a charade and a racist boondoggle. We can seal our border if we really wanted to. We can outlaw travel to Mexico and set up embargos. As Skeet says, "when the Mexican people are tired of it all, they will sort it out". It will be bloody.

We will Mexico/Baja lovers/dwellers will lose too until Mexico can sort out it's problems. I am really sad about all this. The horror has escalated and advanced beyond any decent human sensibilities. It has surpassed any threshold of acceptance. There don't appear to be any quick and painless solutions. :no:

The demand will not ever disappear. It thrives with the affluent as well as the poor, during good economic times and bad. It is endemic in our culture. In my view, the supply side is all we can work against. How to achieve that is the big question.

[Edited on 12-24-2009 by toneart]

Bajahowodd - 12-23-2009 at 06:07 PM

I am saddened also. But as much as I wish it, we can never go back.

fishbuck - 12-23-2009 at 06:08 PM

I hate to interupt this but...
They have 4 suspects in custody from the assasination of the Marine's family.

Packoderm - 12-23-2009 at 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Dave- For someone not living in America, you have to look in the mirror.

Dave, Dave, Dave, it's not the joint that got somebody killed - it's the prohibition policies that's spawning the organized crime. Your get-mean-on-pot suggestions will only result in more profits for the cartels and more pain for everybody else. Wait. Now you're not secretly dealing are you? I do know that the cartels are in favor of strong drug laws. You don't have grown men kiss your ring do you? There must be an explanation for what appears to look like a Devil's advocate position.

monoloco - 12-23-2009 at 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS
Before you get rid of this and get rid of that, you'll have to get rid of the Bill Of Rights and the ACLU. In fact, they should be done away with anyway. They're the biggest protectors of criminals we have.

And that pesky constitution too!

DENNIS - 12-23-2009 at 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco
And that pesky constitution too!

Well, I'd stop short of that. It's just that the Bill Of Rights needs to be modernized. It gives too much protection to criminals. They should first be shot, then read their rights.
Perhaps we could test this theory on congress.

Wink,Wink

Dave - 12-23-2009 at 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm
I do know that the cartels are in favor of strong drug laws.

Only because they know we don't mean it. We don't have the stomach for it. If we started penalizing users and cut into their profits cartels would change their tune.

We are weak sisters.

monoloco - 12-23-2009 at 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco
And that pesky constitution too!

Maybe a new Bill of Rights with guarantees like the right to a blindfold before summary execution.

k-rico - 12-23-2009 at 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbuck
I hate to interupt this but...
They have 4 suspects in custody from the assasination of the Marine's family.

NBC just said the guys arrested were Zetas. Aren't the Zetas affiliated with La Familia Michoacana?

Not your father's cartel.

They're taking it to the next level.

Intentionally murdering innocent women and childern.

Using bombs.

They got to get these guys.

[Edited on 12-24-2009 by k-rico]

Mexicorn - 12-23-2009 at 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS
Prisoners should be made to work. Dig things with their hands. Eat rocks and twigs.

Is this what happens when I leave you guys alone for eight hours?

This thread was reduced to this by page 4?

OK OK everyone needs to take a deep breath and next time read the bottle of Xanax it say's; DO NOT DRINK ALCOHOLWHEN TAKING THIS MEDICATION!

Nomads in the future please heed the warning on the label I dont want see anymore posts like this one.
Thanks
The Mexicorn

DENNIS - 12-23-2009 at 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mexicorn

This thread was reduced to this by page 4?

That was four pages ago? Seems like just yesterday. :biggrin:

Hook - 12-23-2009 at 07:53 PM

Unfortunately, the persons arrested are NOT the actual killers, just accessories to the crime.

Still searching........

Mexicorn - 12-23-2009 at 08:03 PM

Good news no else needs to come to San Diego to buy any more Christmas gifts.
My wife just walked in and I'm happy to report that she single handedly bought everything in the City. Stay home no need to come.

Woooosh - 12-23-2009 at 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm
randomly testing a person to find out if they smoked a joint last Friday night is un-American in nature.

Isn't smoking a joint on American soil a 'criminal' act? Wouldn't it be un-American not to report it?

On the topic of detering all drug use in the USA- and I threw out employer random drug testing.

I've flip flopped on this before- "I own a persons full attention for 40 hours a week- do I have the right to know/monitor what they do the rest of the time?" I had a Human Resources Director final candidate come to me after we made the offer to tell me she couldn't pass the drug test (hair specimen). Was hard to believe and we felt sad for her at the time.

Most all workplaces now drug test after any on the job injury- so the Workers Comp claim can be disallowed.

[Edited on 12-24-2009 by Woooosh]

How did she get all that across?

Dave - 12-23-2009 at 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mexicorn
Good news no else needs to come to San Diego to buy any more Christmas gifts.
My wife just walked in and I'm happy to report that she single handedly bought everything in the City. Stay home no need to come.

Must have had a Footprinters badge. :rolleyes:

Four Zetas Arrested for Murder of Marine's Family (VIDEO IN SPANISH)

ELINVESTIG8R - 12-23-2009 at 11:17 PM

Drugs and the War

wessongroup - 12-24-2009 at 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm
randomly testing a person to find out if they smoked a joint last Friday night is un-American in nature.

Isn't smoking a joint on American soil a 'criminal' act? Wouldn't it be un-American not to report it?

On the topic of deterring all drug use in the USA- and I threw out employer random drug testing.

I've flip flopped on this before- "I own a persons full attention for 40 hours a week- do I have the right to know/monitor what they do the rest of the time?" I had a Human Resources Director final candidate come to me after we made the offer to tell me she couldn't pass the drug test (hair specimen). Was hard to believe and we felt sad for her at the time.

Most all workplaces now drug test after any on the job injury- so the Workers Comp claim can be disallowed.

[Edited on 12-24-2009 by Woooosh]

good for you Woooosh, I have always based ones ability on the "job" as the true measure of their: reliability, ability on how they preform on the job... I don't like to prejudge folks.. as I know all of us are not perfect and with past mistakes and let alone their off job "doings" ... to me it was their business, as long as they show up and get it done.. if the didn't show up, messed up orders, backed trucks into crap and the like, missed making delivery's and/or just tore up crap in general, rude you know what is needed.. well then I made a mistake on the hire.. and would tell them. sorry but your out of here...

It always worked for me... have had folks that "chipped" with heroin and still were able to "get er done" and that is the bottom line in my book.. don't care about how much "schoolen one has" don't care if they have been in jail, don't care what religion, don't care if they are man or woman.. only thing, can you get it done !!! to me it the bottom line..

In some positions, truck drivers hauling hazardous materials, and a few other positions folks have to be "tested" to be certified.. would let folks know.. if they didn't (and most folks that do drugs knew)

I would not rule out anyone about anything... I have always have really good success with this approach.. the folks that I gave a chance (ex-con's, druggies trying to do right, divorced mom's with no experience in book keeping or what ever I could talk them into doing) .. in many cases THEY did not think they could do the job (I don't have any education was one that always got me).. on that one I'm with skeets.. having a college degree and the rest is no assurance that the individual would be able to accomplish a task... have worked with a lot of "educated folks" who could not pour pi** out of a boot" and had an attitude which in many cases was just not what I needed, wanted or care for.. I like a "can do kind of person", just asking for a chance!!!

One final thing.. it is a war (political) as it's a law about someone "legal right" to use drugs and this is the way wars like this are fought.. someone gets pay back.. we do the same and in most cases the only the "target" gets hit.. but we all know that just the bad guys are not only ones.. there is most always collateral damage when you hit "small towns".. it happened in Nam, and every one of the "police actions" we have been in since the end of the second wold war... it's because of the "type" of "wars" these guys/gals are asked to fight in...

Yemeni air strike kills 30, targets home of cleric linked to Ft. Hood attack

aahhhh you might call this pay back.... and, we do pay back and lots of folks get hurt...
some bad and some good...

Living in Mexico, in a war zone... what does one expect....

This ain't Kanas Dorothy

[Edited on 12-24-2009 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 12-24-2009 by wessongroup]

oldlady - 12-24-2009 at 07:54 AM

Nope, and I have my ruby slippers in the closet....just in case.

employer random drug testing

k-rico - 12-24-2009 at 08:29 AM

From personal experience:

Let's say you are a software engineer (lots of them these days) managing a small team of developers working on a project important to the survival of the company. The lead developer, the guy who works 60 hours per week writing the most complicated code and you've paid for two years to learn where the software development men's room is, comes up positive for smoking pot over the weekend.

Are you going to tell him to get lost? I don't think so.

oldlady - 12-24-2009 at 08:39 AM

From personal experience: Yes. If you are a good manager you can walk and chew gum at the same time. You have a responsibility to the company and its values and policies. You have a responsibility for success of the project. The employee has a responsibility to uphold his side of the implied or explicit contract he agreed to in taking the job.

The loss of a key person is not uncommon in projects or companies. Your job as manager is to minimize the impact and facilitate the success of all the members of the team..

wessongroup - 12-24-2009 at 08:39 AM

exactly.. is he or she doing their job... "light them if you have them"

[Edited on 12-24-2009 by wessongroup]

k-rico - 12-24-2009 at 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldlady
From personal experience: Yes. If you are a good manager you can walk and chew gum at the same time. You have a responsibility to the company and its values and policies. You have a responsibility for success of the project. The employee has a responsibility to uphold his side of the implied or explicit contract he agreed to in taking the job.

The loss of a key person is not uncommon in projects or companies. Your job as manager is to minimize the impact and facilitate the success of all the members of the team..

Well, there is the ideal and the real. Get real.

snowcat5 - 12-24-2009 at 08:46 AM

After reading through all this crap I realize that there sure are a lot of people who think that the drug cartels are profiting from the sale and exportation of pot. Pot is not the problem; meth and coke are. The meth biz in Mexico is huge, millions of Mexicans are using meth and so are millions of other people around the world. The Los Cabo area is a prime spot for "Ice" use; ask anyone who works in the construction or hospitality industries. How about this idea; we eliminate the chemicals used to make meth. Most of the core ingredients come from the USA. About drug testing; I worked many years for a ski area and they started drug testing the employees about 15 years ago. I worked on a crew that operated $300,000 snowcats, at night. They paid most of us less that $10 an hour. Pot smokers got caught-up in the testing all the time (pot stays in your system for 30 days or more) and were fired when they had a Positive test. Meth and coke users were seldom caught (these drugs were only in you urine for a day or two) and these Positive employees were offered counseling and rehab. The last season I worked there the GM announce that management would not be subjected to drug testing. Three months later the GM went into rehab for alcohol, coke and meth use. He took two months off for recovery and came back to work. He's still the GM there today. He discontinued the drug testing the following year because " the ski area was unable to find enough clean people to run the lifts. Just food for thought... Have a great Holidaze!

oldlady - 12-24-2009 at 08:53 AM

Been there and done that..real...and coached managers with similar conundrums. What if the employee died? (been there a couple of times too) None of the projects failed, none of the departments or companies cratered. If you worked for me in a company with zero tolerance and you looked the other way favoring one employee, you and I would be discussing why you should keep your managerial job.

k-rico - 12-24-2009 at 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lencho

Quote:

Originally posted by k-ricoAre you going to tell him to get lost? I don't think so.

Those weekend activities may be one source of his creative energy... :light:

--Larry

Ah, a fellow developer.

k-rico - 12-24-2009 at 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldlady
Been there and done that..real...and coached managers with similar conundrums. What if the employee died? (been there a couple of times too) None of the projects failed, none of the departments or companies cratered. If you worked for me in a company with zero tolerance and you looked the other way favoring one employee, you and I would be discussing why you should keep your managerial job.

I wouldn't work for a company with zero tolerance. I like to be around people who think. I'd work for your competitor, with zeal.

oldlady - 12-24-2009 at 09:01 AM

Hopefully you will always have that freedom of choice. I love competiton.

Woooosh - 12-24-2009 at 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
From personal experience:

Let's say you are a software engineer (lots of them these days) managing a small team of developers working on a project important to the survival of the company. The lead developer, the guy who works 60 hours per week writing the most complicated code and you've paid for two years to learn where the software development men's room is, comes up positive for smoking pot over the weekend.

Are you going to tell him to get lost? I don't think so.

Um, yes- you have to if that is your written and fully communicated Human Resources policy. It's called ethics. Ethics can sting, but operating a business without them is worse (mortgage banking industry two years ago- for example).

My concern in your example would be that this software developer (knowing he could be drug tested- but still used) would be... "OK- he doesn't respect our drug policy, is he going to respect our Intellectual Rights policy- or sell us out someday? It's all tied together and a slippery slope IMHO.

Most employers state proudly they have a drug-free policy. If you can't pass it, or live with it- just apply and work somewhere else. If you can't stay clean for those 90 days before applying for a job you really need and want (so you can pass a hair sample test) you have a drug problem- so deal with that first.

I don't agree all jobs need drug testing.

I did enjoy your post WessonGroup. Thanks.

tripledigitken - 12-24-2009 at 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

Quote:

I wouldn't work for a company with zero tolerance. I like to be around people who think. I'd work for your competitor, with zeal.

K-Rico,

Bingo, you just figured it out. Most users when they know there is a zero tolerance policy look for other employers. In the last 10 years where I work, since they started randon drug testing, work place injuries have gone down significantly as have our workman's comp mod rating (down is good).

So in your opinion only those that use drugs are thinkers? Thats an interesting point of view.

Ken

wessongroup - 12-24-2009 at 09:13 AM

Really, the last I heard a oz.. of primo was around $550-650 in the greater Los Angeles area..

That works out to to $8,800/pound and/or $19,360/kilo, not as much return as the other.. but still not a bad days work if one moves just 10 or 20 lbs..

Meth users don't have to be caught or tested... you can see one a mile away... and if they are smoke "crack" same is true.. and most would not be working anyway they would be getting "wired"..

If they are driving a "snow cat" and do what they are supposed to, and they don't run it over a skier, or off the side of a mountain.. what's the big woof

tripledigitken - 12-24-2009 at 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wessongroup

If they are driving a "snow cat" and do what they are supposed to, and they don't run it over a skier, or off the side of a mountain.. what's the big woof

That statement is ridiculous. You need help.

Ken

k-rico - 12-24-2009 at 09:27 AM

"So in your opinion only those that use drugs are thinkers? Thats an interesting point of view. "

I didn't say that at all. Zero tolerance policies remove judgement of individual cases. That's my problem with them.

tripledigitken - 12-24-2009 at 09:34 AM

k-rico,

I'm glad to here that. You sound smarter than one having that opinion.

Ken

wessongroup - 12-24-2009 at 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tripledigitken

Quote:

Originally posted by wessongroup

If they are driving a "snow cat" and do what they are supposed to, and they don't run it over a skier, or off the side of a mountain.. what's the big woof

That statement is ridiculous. You need help.

Ken

Only in your narrow world.... and by the way, have you any accounts of this occurring, out on the slopes or are we dealing with, if, may, could, should, or I think!!! light em if you have them..

[Edited on 12-24-2009 by wessongroup]

k-rico - 12-24-2009 at 09:44 AM

And I'm also smart enough to realize what you guys are saying about agreeing to a policy and then violating it is tough to swallow.

tripledigitken - 12-24-2009 at 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
And I'm also smart enough to realize what you guys are saying about agreeing to a policy and then violating it is tough to swallow.

I'm not saying that one should violate a policy after agreeing to it, or what do you mean?

k-rico - 12-24-2009 at 09:54 AM

I don't understand what you don't understand nor what you said.

This is fun.

[Edited on 12-24-2009 by k-rico]

tripledigitken - 12-24-2009 at 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
And I'm also smart enough to realize what you guys are saying about agreeing to a policy and then violating it is tough to swallow.

please explain the above quote.

k-rico - 12-24-2009 at 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tripledigitken

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
And I'm also smart enough to realize what you guys are saying about agreeing to a policy and then violating it is tough to swallow.

please explain the above quote.

Are you into torture?

Timo1 - 12-24-2009 at 10:04 AM

do you guys have ANY idea what each other is saying ???? :tumble:

DENNIS - 12-24-2009 at 10:10 AM

It's starting to sound like a bar conversation right around "Last Call." :biggrin:

oldlady - 12-24-2009 at 10:10 AM

I think I do understand them...scary....I'm heading for an early egg nog to watch this knife fight.

wessongroup - 12-24-2009 at 10:15 AM

How about this:

Oh, so good our company has a written "POLICY" for everything including drugs, lunch breaks, how you talk on the jobs, what is sexual harassment, what jokes can be told, you can't do drugs and we will test, a policy which takes away from individual freedoms while on and off the JOB, based on to many subjective social mores ... with always "we have rewritten the policy to address X... now everything will work right, or we will change the written policy so it will work right and we will be in compliance with XXX take your pick for justification.. and the POLICY says....

Get real, all policy's do is point out our failures to be able to do a task with the basic human values of: honesty, thrift and individual accountability for ones actions, tied to the fact that it's the individual's response ability to just DO iT... but, then we would lose, human resources, exit interviews and all the other things which contribute to our "well oiled" model of "production" here in the U.S.. and exactly what is it that we produce anymore.. take a look at the GDP !!

Just a question, how many Mexican run small business have "written policy" on these issues.. and is it required by Mexican Law? Thanks in advance for "real" examples in Mexico...

[Edited on 12-24-2009 by wessongroup]

k-rico - 12-24-2009 at 10:16 AM

I think 3 finger lid Ken and I understand each other.

Woooosh - 12-24-2009 at 10:21 AM

On the "snow cat" thing. I was a corporate trainer for Vail Associates in the late 80's- early 90's. They implemented pre-hire and random drug testing for all positions. After one season they threw the policy away. They couldn't find enough drug-free employees in town and the labor pool is geographically limited. Not many ski bums were willing to give up the herb for a low paying 6 month temporary position. It was interesting to watch a drug policy go the other way- in favor of the druggies.

oldlady - 12-24-2009 at 10:24 AM

Wesson: Bingo! What we neglected in this discourse is that most HR policies are developed in compliance with government legislation and policies, union contracts and protection from possible litigation. Much of that does not exist at all in Mexico.

wessongroup - 12-24-2009 at 10:34 AM

Thanks much... used to be, a long time ago, you would ask for a job, the owner would look at you, ask a few questions and that was that... if you messed up.. your down the road, kicking horse apples ..

monoloco - 12-24-2009 at 10:47 AM

In many states the use of marijuana is legal with a doctor's recommendation. If company policy can trump state law would it be okay for a company to have a policy banning the use of tobacco in an employees free time or the use of Prozac or Vicodan even with a doctors prescription? There are plenty of prescription medications that affect an employees performance worse than marijuana.

oldlady - 12-24-2009 at 10:53 AM

I know that some companies have been making an effort to ban the hiring of employees who smoke cigarettes. I didn't follow the progress. Part of the motivation was that a non-smoking work force would lower their group insurance premiums.
Company policies frequently are more strict than state law. I wouldn't use the word "trump". For example, it is not at all uncommon for a company to search employees briefcases upon entering or leaving company property...no probable cause required.

monoloco - 12-24-2009 at 11:05 AM

I am afraid that in the future companies will want to get rid of employees for a variety of reasons unrelated to job performance such as genetic markers for certain diseases, chance of becoming pregnant, or age. This is the downside of a private profit based health insurance system.

oldlady - 12-24-2009 at 11:14 AM

Not a chance. The movement in this country is toward more government regulation and strengthening of unions. Isn't that abundantly clear? Wish I had a dollar for every hour I spent just in the last ten years of my career sitting in meetings where the latest regulatory details were laid out. None have been removed. That's what legislators and government agencies do for a living.

wessongroup - 12-24-2009 at 11:23 AM

Again thanks, and that's the truth...

Packoderm - 12-24-2009 at 11:29 AM

Smokers are the worst. They insist on cigarette breaks that seem to get longer and more often. I'd rather work for a firm that did not allow smokers, but it's the American in me that would not favor testing to see if somebody lit up Saturday night.

Packoderm - 12-24-2009 at 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldlady
I know that some companies have been making an effort to ban the hiring of employees who smoke cigarettes. I didn't follow the progress. Part of the motivation was that a non-smoking work force would lower their group insurance premiums.
Company policies frequently are more strict than state law. I wouldn't use the word "trump". For example, it is not at all uncommon for a company to search employees briefcases upon entering or leaving company property...no probable cause required.

I know, I know how it goes - the employee has been stealing briefcases! :lol:

wessongroup - 12-24-2009 at 11:35 AM

supply them with "chew" and a place to spit... :lol:

DENNIS - 12-24-2009 at 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm
Smokers are the worst. They insist on cigarette breaks that seem to get longer and more often.

The unions that do all this insisting are far more insidious than the smokers. When you want to clean up a mess, you have to start at the bottom.

Pages: 1 2 3