YOU solve America's Drug Problem

  • Thread starter Blahness
  • Start date
In summary: I can't claim to be a expert or anything but I have yet to se any real evidence(not that I have looked that hard) that pure MDMA is very dangerous. Most of the first studies done on it seemed to be biased to make it look bad with tremendous od's ect. I might very well be wrong. But I wouldn't consider it half as bad as meth. Atleast MDMA doesn't make people paranoid or dangerous so I wouldn't consider MDMA users a danger to society like a PCP user or amphetamine addict. Seems to be a hard drug to get addicted to as well since apperently it won't work if you take it several days in a row. So
  • #36
gattaca :)

That would be a sad future since I doubt the great people in history was geneticly superior.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Ivan said:
The day that I had to pee in a bottle in order to get a job, I felt violated. AFAIC, when I leave the job, the boss has nothing to say about how I choose to live; and he is certainly not entitled to my pee; though I thought to offer something from the rear, at the time! Obviously certain jobs carry public safety concerns, and these issues must be carefully considered, but in principle I see this as a violation of privacy - illegal search, which makes it a federal issue. So in this sense it is part of the entire picture. Next, the same applies for alcohol. Did you know that some employers now test for booze as well...and cigarettes? How about fat next? And should we have to pass a cholesterol test? How about heart disease; don't want to hire one of those guys... And get the DNA tests and make sure this guy isn't liekly to cost us a fortune in medical insurance... Get the idea? And did you hear about the incident in Illinois in which the cops went to a womans house, and right in front of her children, arrested and hauled her off for smoking cigarettes in front of the kids - child endangerment? The law that made this possible was repealed, but for a long time now I have watched in horror as basics concepts of privacy go up in smoke.
To some extent I agree with Drug Testing for jobs. Most places test you once and that's it. Personally I'm not sure if I want someone working for me that can't clean up long enough to take a drug test so he can have a job. I also know plenty of people that smoke pot and most often they do so AT work. It's kinda scary.
I know that certain police stations around here just recently made it so you can't smoke if you work for them. I kinda understand that one if you are supposed to be able to run after suspects and there's no question that smoking reduces lung capacity. Also people that are offering you life time benefits probably should be allowed to know if you are a smoker or not. There are other sorts of jobs where they don't let their employees smoke mostly in the medical industry I think and other places that are sensitive about contaminants. The booze one I have never heard of before.
 
  • #38
Azael said:
gattaca :)
That would be a sad future since I doubt the great people in history was geneticly superior.
Oh and Gattaca was great. I loved that movie.
I worked at a Blockbuster Video back then and about slapped a couple of ditzy blonde chicks that said it sucked.
 

Similar threads

Replies
61
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
510
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
45
Views
4K
Back
Top