Systematic Issues

Started by Scribble8 pages
Scribble Restricted

Originally posted by socool8520
You could also mistake a human being for a demon and murder them.
That's mostly a myth. Hallucinations are generally known by the human brain to be hallucinations; you're thinking of a delusion, which is where the human brain can't distinguish between the real and the false. The only case where a psychedelic would make someone think someone else was a demon for reals is if that person already had a pre-existing dissociative disorder. Plus, generally, psychedelics have been proven, in small doses, to actually help to alleviate or even partially heal some disorders. Psilocybin and DMT in particular have been shown to be incredibly effective treatments for depression, psychosis, and other disorders.

I can personally attest to psilocybin's use as an anti-depressant, magic mushrooms saved my goddamn life.

socool8520 Life's a garden, Dig it

I guess man. if you want to destroy your mind for kicks, "enlightenment", or whatever, who am I to stop you. I assume there is no crying later when your mind is destroyed. Not physically, but psychologically.

Emperordmb LSDMB

Except most people get positive shit out of those experiences. The idea that the usage of psychedelics consists of a bunch of dipshits destroying their mind for a cheap high is laughable.

socool8520 Life's a garden, Dig it

I guess I've never needed anything other than my own basic reasoning skills to be content so I don't see the point personally.

socool8520 Life's a garden, Dig it
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Except most people get positive shit out of those experiences. The idea that the usage of psychedelics consists of a bunch of dipshits destroying their mind for a cheap high is laughable.

The idea that they are all getting positive experiences is also laughable, but I concede that you should be free pursue these ventures at your own leisure.

I still think it should show up on your record because as an emploeyr, I don't want someone high as hell working for me.

Emperordmb LSDMB

Originally posted by socool8520
The idea that they are all getting positive experiences is also laughable,

And I can personally attest to the fact that they aren't. I've had some more negative fundamentally disturbing experiences that I myself take full responsibility for.

Originally posted by socool8520
but I concede that you should be free pursue these ventures at your own leisure.

👆

Originally posted by socool8520
I still think it should show up on your record because as an emploeyr, I don't want someone high as hell working for me.

Why? Why should it matter to an employer if I've done LSD or psilocybin in my own free time if I'm keeping it separate from the workplace? The fact that I've done psychedelics a handful of times is not grounds to assume I'm gonna be showing up to work "high as hell."

If I do psychedelics at work, fire me. If not, leave me alone lol.

Scribble Restricted

Should we have anyone who has ever imbibed alcohol having that on their record, too? I don't want no drunks working for me.

socool8520 Life's a garden, Dig it

Originally posted by Emperordmb
And I can personally attest to the fact that they aren't. I've had some more negative fundamentally disturbing experiences that I myself take full responsibility for.

👆

Why? Why should it matter to an employer if I've done LSD or psilocybin in my own free time if I'm keeping it separate from the workplace? The fact that I've done psychedelics a handful of times is not grounds to assume I'm gonna be showing up to work "high as hell."

If I do psychedelics at work, fire me. If not, leave me alone lol.

Because it separates you from someone who doesn't. Do I care that it seems unfair to you? Not at all. It's something I definitely want to consider when vetting applications.

socool8520 Life's a garden, Dig it
Originally posted by Scribble
Should we have anyone who has ever imbibed alcohol having that on their record, too? I don't want no drunks working for me.

Absolutely, especially if it's a trend. I also don't want drunks working for me.

Scribble Restricted

Originally posted by socool8520
Absolutely, especially if it's a trend. I also don't want drunks working for me.
Yeah but that's a certain type of person, the kind of person who'd turn up to work drunk or high. That often has nothing to do with people who like to get drunk or high recreationally. It's no business of mine if someone wants to get ****ed out of their head as long as it doesn't affect their working ability. You'll be able to spot these kinds of people without something on their personal record that says "they like a drink" or "they like to get high" or "they took acid once". The idea of pigeonholing anyone who has done drugs or drinks as a social reprobate is fairly authoritarian, in a very narrow way that says little of the calibre of the human in question.

socool8520 Life's a garden, Dig it
Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah but that's a certain type of person, the kind of person who'd turn up to work drunk or high. That often has nothing to do with people who like to get drunk or high recreationally. It's no business of mine if someone wants to get ****ed out of their head as long as it doesn't affect their working ability. You'll be able to spot these kinds of people without something on their personal record that says "they like a drink" or "they like to get high" or "they took acid once". The idea of pigeonholing anyone who has done drugs or drinks as a social reprobate is fairly authoritarian, in a very narrow way that says little of the calibre of the human in question.

Yes, and if it was only once, then it probably won't even factor, but I would still like to see it reflected when I'm making employment decisions. If you like to get drunk every weekend, I want to know that. It will factor into my decision in hiring. I really don't care if that offends people. It doesn't mean I won't hire you, but it will definitely be a factor.

I'm not speaking from inexperience, I have tried marijuana and it is on my record. I am fine with the military or whoever my employer is knowing when making the decision to hire me. It is there right to pick whoever they think is best for the job. It's what i'd do.

Scribble Restricted

Originally posted by socool8520
Yes, and if it was only once, then it probably won't even factor, but I would still like to see it reflected when I'm making employment decisions. If you like to get drunk every weekend, I want to know that. It will factor into my decision in hiring. I really don't care if that offends people. It doesn't mean I won't hire you, but it will definitely be a factor.

I'm not speaking from inexperience, I have tried marijuana and it is on my record. I am fine with the military or whoever my employer is knowing when making the decision to hire me. It is there right to pick whoever they think is best for the job. It's what i'd do.

I guess that's a personal choice then and I understand where you're coming from now. As a bit of personal perspective, would you hire someone fully qualified for the job who gets drunk every weekend over someone slightly less qualified who was tee-total?

Surtur Restricted

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Then said documentation should be free of expense, easy to receive, and something that everyone is informed about. I could support that policy.

Here's the source:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

This doesn't say which documents cost so much. Which ones, do you know?

Here is what it says you need in Illinois, proof of:

Written signature,
Date of birth,
Social Security number, and
Address, or a Homeless status certification.

I'm confused. Seems like you should have most of those, like a birth certificate and proof of a SSN. Where do all these fees come into play?

I see $23 if you need to be given a copy of your birth certificate. But then, you should already have that somewhere and be able to just make a copy of it at a kinkos or something.

Seems like responsible people should have an easy time.

socool8520 Life's a garden, Dig it
Originally posted by Scribble
I guess that's a personal choice then and I understand where you're coming from now. As a bit of personal perspective, would you hire someone fully qualified for the job who gets drunk every weekend over someone slightly less qualified who was tee-total?

It really depends on the qualification gap. If the non-drinker can perform up to standard then I probably do hire them over someone who drinks every weekend. I would be less worried about them showing up late or their work slipping. From personal experience, people who I worked with that drink like that had more issues with punctuality than people who don't drink. If i'm running a business, I'm going with the safer option. That's just good business.

Scribble Restricted

Originally posted by socool8520
It really depends on the qualification gap. If the non-drinker can perform up to standard then I probably do hire them over someone who drinks every weekend. I would be less worried about them showing up late or their work slipping. From personal experience, people who I worked with that drink like that had more issues with punctuality than people who don't drink. If i'm running a business, I'm going with the safer option. That's just good business.
Alright, cool. Every employer is different to be fair and I can see how you reached your conclusion so I understand why you hold your beliefs. Seems fair enough to me.

Emperordmb LSDMB

My main issue with this isn't so much the liberty of the employer to make their own decisions in the hiring process, but moreso a concern for my own privacy. I'm not exactly comfortable with my social habits being under surveillance and made a matter of public record to be used against me.

Surtur Restricted
Originally posted by Emperordmb
My main issue with this isn't so much the liberty of the employer to make their own decisions in the hiring process, but moreso a concern for my own privacy. I'm not exactly comfortable with my social habits being under surveillance and made a matter of public record to be used against me.

That's one reason I don't use social media anymore.

Scribble Restricted

Originally posted by Emperordmb
My main issue with this isn't so much the liberty of the employer to make their own decisions in the hiring process, but moreso a concern for my own privacy. I'm not exactly comfortable with my social habits being under surveillance and made a matter of public record to be used against me.
Yeah, that's basically what I'm uncomfortable about with it, too.

ArtificialGlory God-Emperor of Eternity

Originally posted by socool8520
I disagree, but you have a right to your opinion.

Absolutely. I could totally see why it could be outlawed. You get no argument from there. lol


Can you see? Because outlawing booze in addition to the already unreasonably strict anti-drug laws would be a tremendously bad idea. The Prohibition + The War on Drugs = absolute societal catastrof*ck.

socool8520 Life's a garden, Dig it
Originally posted by Emperordmb
My main issue with this isn't so much the liberty of the employer to make their own decisions in the hiring process, but moreso a concern for my own privacy. I'm not exactly comfortable with my social habits being under surveillance and made a matter of public record to be used against me.

Well, don't get caught using illegal drugs and it won't show up anywhere lol.
If it becomes legal, then don't do anything stupid and it won't be reported. No issues.

If you are blabbing it on social media (I'm not meaning you directly) then it becomes public record and I would factor into my decision making process.