April 24, 2012 at 7:38 am
jay-h (4/24/2012)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (4/23/2012)
djackson 22568 (4/23/2012)
I'm not sure I want a law enforcement official suggesting that drugs are acceptable, or drinking and driving isn't a big deal when he represents his agency. I'm not sure I want an IT guy working for me talking about SQL Injection not being a big deal, or that every developer he works with is an idiot because they allow SQL Injection. There are some reasonable expectations about how you conduct yourself, and posting in social media is somewhat equivalent to shouting something in the town square.
...
You may not want these things, but there are substantial limits to invasion of private lives you can do in trying to find them out.
I'm slightly confused. I do think that people have a right to express themselves in private. I was saying that the company has a right to have some decent representation of themselves by an employee in public.
I do think opinions on the way the company is run or internal operations are different than wanting to know about a criminal record. As far as family leave, that is definitely not something that should be disclosed to a company without the employee's consent.
April 24, 2012 at 7:44 am
I'm slightly confused. I do think that people have a right to express themselves in private. I was saying that the company has a right to have some decent representation of themselves by an employee in public.
I totally agree Steve, they do. However, this becomes a non-issue if you don't post private or semi-private matters on the Internet in the first place. Kind of common sense IMHO. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
April 24, 2012 at 7:54 am
jay-h (4/24/2012)Drugs are not harmless, but crimalization is even worse.
I'm sorry Jay that really doesn't make any sense at all.
April 24, 2012 at 8:06 am
david.wright-948385 (4/24/2012)
jay-h (4/24/2012)Drugs are not harmless, but crimalization is even worse.
I'm sorry Jay that really doesn't make any sense at all.
It does if you are a user. I'm not assuming Jay is, but that is the classic logic users use.:-D
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
April 24, 2012 at 8:09 am
TravisDBA (4/24/2012)It does if you are a user. I'm not assuming Jay is, but that is the logic users use.:-D
Hadn't thought of that :crazy:
April 24, 2012 at 8:21 am
TravisDBA (4/24/2012)
david.wright-948385 (4/24/2012)
jay-h (4/24/2012)Drugs are not harmless, but crimalization is even worse.
I'm sorry Jay that really doesn't make any sense at all.
It does if you are a user. I'm not assuming Jay is, but that is the classic logic users use.:-D
Did you know that IT and the illegal drug trade are the only industries that call their customers users?
April 24, 2012 at 8:22 am
TravisDBA (4/24/2012)
david.wright-948385 (4/24/2012)
jay-h (4/24/2012)Drugs are not harmless, but crimalization is even worse.
I'm sorry Jay that really doesn't make any sense at all.
It does if you are a user. I'm not assuming Jay is, but that is the classic logic users use.:-D
Actually it makes a lot of sense to me.
Most deaths due to drug overdoses are down to the varying quality of drugs that users are exposed to on the illegal market. A properly controlled supply with percentage strengths on the side, as we have with alcohol, would minimise this risk. Drug dealers don't check users IDs the way bar staff do, making it easier for under-age users to get hold of illegal drugs then on legal ones (such as alcohol and nicotine.) The amount of violent crime directly attributed to the illegal market is very damaging to society, as is putting casual users in prison, making it harder for them to get jobs.
I'm not saying drugs are safe, but I think they could be controlled much better within the law then under the current system (I don't believe in a total free for all, but in proper licensing of their sale, as with alcohol.) They should be taxed. If even half the money raised was put into better drug education we might find the numbers of users going down. If a proportion of the money saved by the police was put into drug treatment centres we could help a lot of people who's lives are blighted by drugs. Addiction should be treated as a medical problem, not a legal one.
I'm not saying drugs are harmless, although many people casually use drugs with little harm, just as many people casually use alcohol with little harm, but the illegal market is making them even more dangerous, IMHO.
April 24, 2012 at 8:45 am
Freddie-304292 (4/24/2012)Actually it makes a lot of sense to me ...the illegal market is making them even more dangerous, IMHO.
If you tax drugs there'll still be a black market to avoid the tax, so you'll keep the problems of quality control. If you don't tax it, the price will be so low, it'll be left around the home like sweets. And it doesn't matter how pure dope is, it still has paranioc and delusional effects. They change the person who takes them fundamentally and can take a chunk out of their life, often at a time when they can least afford it.
A better way to control the drug trade is through the same process that has made such progress in the UK with drink driving: make it uncool. Tag it with "only losers do this", "what sort of moron would actually damage themselves and other people like this". No big stick, just a hefty dose of "you effin idiot!".
April 24, 2012 at 8:47 am
david.wright-948385 (4/24/2012)
Freddie-304292 (4/24/2012)Actually it makes a lot of sense to me ...the illegal market is making them even more dangerous, IMHO.
If you tax drugs there'll still be a black market to avoid the tax, so you'll keep the problems of quality control. If you don't tax it, the price will be so low, it'll be left around the home like sweets. And it doesn't matter how pure dope is, it still has paranioc and delusional effects. They change the person who takes them fundamentally and can take a chunk out of their life, often at a time when they can least afford it.
A better way to control the drug trade is through the same process that has made such progress in the UK with drink driving: make it uncool. Tag it with "only losers do this", "what sort of moron would actually damage themselves and other people like this". No big stick, just a hefty dose of "you effin idiot!".
Not to mention the message this sends to our children whose brains haven't totally developed anyway.:-D
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
April 24, 2012 at 8:48 am
Nancy Regan tried that and it didn't work. You have to address why people want to get high in the first place (escape reality) before you can curb anything.
On another note, holy thread totally off track Batman.
Cheers
April 24, 2012 at 8:52 am
jfogel (4/24/2012)You have to address why people want to get high in the first place (escape reality) before you can curb anything.
Mmm, don't reckon you're ever going to stop people wanting to escape reality - that's what sells books, films, motorbikes, holidays...
jfogel (4/24/2012)On another note, holy thread totally off track Batman.
Interesting though :w00t:
April 24, 2012 at 8:54 am
And this is why you will never stop people from getting high. The genie isn't going back in the bottle no matter what.
Cheers
April 24, 2012 at 8:55 am
jay-h (4/24/2012)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (4/23/2012)
djackson 22568 (4/23/2012)
I'm not sure I want a law enforcement official suggesting that drugs are acceptable, or drinking and driving isn't a big deal when he represents his agency. I'm not sure I want an IT guy working for me talking about SQL Injection not being a big deal, or that every developer he works with is an idiot because they allow SQL Injection. There are some reasonable expectations about how you conduct yourself, and posting in social media is somewhat equivalent to shouting something in the town square.
...
You may not want these things, but there are substantial limits to invasion of private lives you can do in trying to find them out. A store owner may want to know if a potential employee has shoplifted, but that does not give him permission to seach the person's home 'just to check'. It does not give an employer the right to ask for a pregnancy check just because they are concerned about someone taking family leave. And while a person's political or religious views don't belong on company media, people DO have the right to express private opinions to their friends.
It appears you inadvertantly misquoted me. Steve is the one who said
I'm not sure I want a law enforcement official suggesting that drugs are acceptable,
, not me.
I do in fact want our cops talking about how guns and drugs are not as dangerous as the media tells us. Research by looking at the actual statistical data will show you the media outright lies about these issues. I used to be anti gun, until I did a research paper in college about them. I focused on how 90% of the time a gun owner has their gun taken away and used against them. As I read the data, I discovered that is an absolute falsehood. The fact is less than 2% of the time is a gun taken away from a gun owner and used against them. The percentage of gun owners who successfully use their weapon to prevent a crime is mind boggling high!
"Drugs are evil" say our media and politicians. Really? Didn't we try prohibition once? Morally I am opposed to legalizing drugs, but the fact is that doing so would REDUCE drug use, eliminate crime associate with illegal drugs, and provide significant revenue for the government. The cops on the street know the truth, but the "political cops" don't want the real cops talking about reality, as it doesn't fit their agenda of controlling the population.
Like I said before, free speech is important because it causes us to evaluate truth, make better decisions, and it exposes fraud. Those who don't want their company talked about need to consider changing policy so that employees want to be positive. I know of someone who worked for a company that did an employee survey, and punished employees for answering honestly. Remember, beatings will continue until moral improves.
Dave
Dave
April 24, 2012 at 9:11 am
david.wright-948385 (4/24/2012)
Freddie-304292 (4/24/2012)
... the drug laws are terrible, causing way more misery then the drugs themselvesPlease don't propagate this fallacy. Try talking to anyone who works with, or who has suffered the long term psychological effects of even short term use of supposedly harmless drugs. You really don't want to expose anyone to the life long effect they have, or the difficult, often traumatic path the users face to become the people they once were. Sure it's easier for law enforcement to make them legal, but that policy will leave an even bigger trail of damaged people in its wake.
We all know there are people who are harmed by drugs. Including FDA approved drugs.
We also all know people who function perfectly normally in society and are casual drug users. Studies have shown that the number of adults who use drugs recreationally (excluding alcohol) are as high as 20% or more!
Logic should be pretty common in this field but unfortunately we don't all think logically.
John is tall. Tall people have back problems. John just have back problems. On an IQ test a lot of people would say John must have back problems, but the logic doesn't work that way.
John does drugs. John died from an overdose. All drug users die of overdoses. Again, bad logic, no matter how bad any psychological effects are that you witnessed.
Remember Nancy Reagan's drug ads? This is your brain on drugs? Only it was really a patient in a coma.
Dave
April 24, 2012 at 9:16 am
Again, classic drug user logic. Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself? 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 200 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply