|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
View Poll Results: Would you? | |||
Yes, I would |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
16 | 17.39% |
No, I wouldn't |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
31 | 33.70% |
Unsure |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
4 | 4.35% |
Too late... |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
41 | 44.57% |
Voters: 92. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 (permalink) | |
Partying on the inside
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,584
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 (permalink) | ||
Seemingly Silenced
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 2,312
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
My MB music journal Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 (permalink) | |
Partying on the inside
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,584
|
![]() Quote:
There would probably have to be a change in policy and the way companies define impairment if drugs were legalized. As it stands, you can get fired for having trace residual amounts of a substance in your body when there's actually no longer any physical 'impairment'. Even still, I know a lot of people who partake in a variety of things and still work. But it sure as hell is stress-city for the pot smokers when random urinalysis time comes. Sadly, many of these people relegate themselves to jobs that rarely drug test... which means they often bag my groceries. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|