Time for me to move on from Webroot
-
@dafyre said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@travisdh1 said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller Should be considered a badge of honor to be shunned.
And it is
If your family hasn't pissed off at least one person in a religious community, you're doing it wrong, lol.
Or, in my case, an entire community. What's wrong with the picture is that I pissed them off for being born, not for something that I did. It's just hatred, not a reaction to me personally.
-
This discussion reminds me of the articles that come out periodically saying that the NSA & FBI can't hire skilled programmers and security people because they all smoke pot and won't pass the drug test:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fbi-cant-find-hackers-that-dont-smoke-pot -
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
This thread is full of persoonal bias from a lifetime of brainwashing and propaganda.
Why would someone who is hungover from a night of binge drinking be allowed to operate machinery and not someone who smoked a joint the night before? Why? Because you have been trained your entire life to think drugs are bad... that is the only reason you would say this.As for people who smoke not being hireable, well I don't know where yall live, but in Washington, many highly successful people smoke. Many successful people drink. Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation off the clock?
-
@momurda said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
This thread is full of persoonal bias from a lifetime of brainwashing and propaganda.
Why would someone who is hungover from a night of binge drinking be allowed to operate machinery and not someone who smoked a joint the night before? Why? Because you have been trained your entire life to think drugs are bad... that is the only reason you would say this.As for people who smoke not being hireable, well I don't know where yall live, but in Washington, many highly successful people smoke. Many successful people drink. Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation off the clock?
The data from Colorado for the past couple years backs this up: http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/25/early-lessons-from-marijuana-legalizatio
-
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
This discussion reminds me of the articles that come out periodically saying that the NSA & FBI can't hire skilled programmers and security people because they all smoke pot and won't pass the drug test:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fbi-cant-find-hackers-that-dont-smoke-potThey additionally have the problem that a lot of people won't work for either on ethical, political, patriotic and other grounds, too. So they struggle even more than just the drug and other issues would imply. Plus people are afraid to work there, just for their safety. And others are afraid about never being able to work anywhere else after that (would YOU want to hire someone who was willing to work for the NSA?) And then there is the fact that it is government and probably pays a fraction of the same job anywhere else.
They struggle for a LOT of reasons.
-
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
It's farming, but with some interesting constraints. You have to secure your plants in a way that other industries don't require, and you have to track them from seed to harvest for compliance reasons. The other interesting factor is that because it's been illegal for so long, there's not as much public knowledge or scientific research like there is for other crops. That's part of what we're hoping to change with the Growers Network community.
That's weird, I thought that there was more knowledge than with other crops. You know in hydroponic circles, nearly all industry knowledge comes from marijuana farming. Everyone that grows tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, etc. learns from marijuana educational materials.
That's probably true in more recent history, but there's not the longer term build-up of knowledge due to it having been illegal in most places for so long. Plus the grow operations are becoming bigger now (or at least the legitimate ones are). Whatever the current state, we're hoping to collect and improve on the knowledge that's out there and provide a place for professionals to share knowledge. The Spiceworks of Cannabis, if you will
I would be very excited to see some real honest science done with the medicinal side. Separate fact from fiction if you will. In Canada it's often touted by it's supporters as a miracle cure for everything and I am dubious. It would be awesome to learn what it is really useful for!
-
@momurda said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation
off the clock?Why would there be ON the clock? Why does any discrimination outside of something dangerous, unethical, culpable (liablous) or affecting the performance on the job get included? I don't care if people are drunk at work, if they are doing the best job, HOW they do it is their concern.
-
@MattSpeller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
It's farming, but with some interesting constraints. You have to secure your plants in a way that other industries don't require, and you have to track them from seed to harvest for compliance reasons. The other interesting factor is that because it's been illegal for so long, there's not as much public knowledge or scientific research like there is for other crops. That's part of what we're hoping to change with the Growers Network community.
That's weird, I thought that there was more knowledge than with other crops. You know in hydroponic circles, nearly all industry knowledge comes from marijuana farming. Everyone that grows tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, etc. learns from marijuana educational materials.
That's probably true in more recent history, but there's not the longer term build-up of knowledge due to it having been illegal in most places for so long. Plus the grow operations are becoming bigger now (or at least the legitimate ones are). Whatever the current state, we're hoping to collect and improve on the knowledge that's out there and provide a place for professionals to share knowledge. The Spiceworks of Cannabis, if you will
I would be very excited to see some real honest science done with the medicinal side. Separate fact from fiction if you will. In Canada it's often touted by it's supporters as a miracle cure for everything and I am dubious. It would be awesome to learn what it is really useful for!
It really is nature's wonder pain killer. Far more uses for it, but the unprocessed plant is only a pain treatment. I don't think we know what the compounds in the plant can be used for yet (no matter what people claim.) Don't get me started on how horrible it is to smoke!
-
When I was a kid I remember my dad telling my about a guy at Eastman Kodak that was passed out drunk on his desk most of the day. He would drink at work and was often useless.
I asked "why didn't they fire him?"
He said "Why would they fire him for that, he's the best guy for the job. He got the work done and did it better than anyone else. What difference is it to Kodak that he likes to drink? Kodak cared about the job getting done, not about pushing a corporate agenda of tea totalling."
-
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@momurda said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
This thread is full of persoonal bias from a lifetime of brainwashing and propaganda.
Why would someone who is hungover from a night of binge drinking be allowed to operate machinery and not someone who smoked a joint the night before? Why? Because you have been trained your entire life to think drugs are bad... that is the only reason you would say this.As for people who smoke not being hireable, well I don't know where yall live, but in Washington, many highly successful people smoke. Many successful people drink. Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation off the clock?
The data from Colorado for the past couple years backs this up: http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/25/early-lessons-from-marijuana-legalizatio
This is the reason I'm leaving too Nic. Best of luck to you sir.
-
D.A.R.E taught me if I drink a single beer or smoke a single joint then then I could die instantly.
-
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@momurda said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
This thread is full of persoonal bias from a lifetime of brainwashing and propaganda.
Why would someone who is hungover from a night of binge drinking be allowed to operate machinery and not someone who smoked a joint the night before? Why? Because you have been trained your entire life to think drugs are bad... that is the only reason you would say this.As for people who smoke not being hireable, well I don't know where yall live, but in Washington, many highly successful people smoke. Many successful people drink. Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation off the clock?
The data from Colorado for the past couple years backs this up: http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/25/early-lessons-from-marijuana-legalizatio
This is the reason I'm leaving too Nic. Best of luck to you sir.
I guess I should clarify a bit. Legalization imo should take place on the federal level ASAP though it never will... This state is flooded with stoners now... Not saying some aren't smart but they've managed to wreck the population entirely. I can't take the traffic or day to day commute anymore... For states looking to legalize in hopes of getting tax money it'll work but at what cost?
-
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
D.A.R.E taught me if I drink a single beer or smoke a single joint then then I could die instantly.
-
Everyone in our company gets drug tested randomly at least once per month. If you work on site they draw your name for that day and you go do it and a breathalyzer on site. If you work from home they draw your name that day and they have to go to their doctor and have it done.
-
@Jason said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Everyone in our company gets drug tested randomly at least once per month. If you work on site they draw your name for that day and you go do it and a breathalyzer on site. If you work from home they draw your name that day and they have to go to their doctor and have it done.
People on probation getting tested less often than that!!! lol
-
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Jason said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Everyone in our company gets drug tested randomly at least once per month. If you work on site they draw your name for that day and you go do it and a breathalyzer on site. If you work from home they draw your name that day and they have to go to their doctor and have it done.
People on probation getting tested less often than that!!! lol
Probation officers take their job more seriously.
-
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@JaredBusch said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Jason said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Our company just made it against the rules to smoke even if it's legal in your state. No matter if you are doing it for recreation or medical reasons (on or off the clock)
Is that legal?
Of course it is. Pot is a federal crime still.
HA - I have no idea where Jason's company is, I was assuming he was talking about cigarettes, not weed.
Why would you think that?
-
@NattNatt said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
D.A.R.E taught me if I drink a single beer or smoke a single joint then then I could die instantly.
No joke. The police officer that did our D.A.R.E. program told us a story about a guy who ended up getting killed from having his first beer ever. She also told us that marijuana is as addictive as crack, heroine, or any other street drug so if you try it once you will never be able to stop and it will ruin your life.
I went to a christian school at the time and even these super conservatives that ran the school were completely shocked at her approach. She acted like in 5th grade, we have never seen our parents or anyone drink beer.
-
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@momurda said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
This thread is full of persoonal bias from a lifetime of brainwashing and propaganda.
Why would someone who is hungover from a night of binge drinking be allowed to operate machinery and not someone who smoked a joint the night before? Why? Because you have been trained your entire life to think drugs are bad... that is the only reason you would say this.As for people who smoke not being hireable, well I don't know where yall live, but in Washington, many highly successful people smoke. Many successful people drink. Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation off the clock?
The data from Colorado for the past couple years backs this up: http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/25/early-lessons-from-marijuana-legalizatio
This is the reason I'm leaving too Nic. Best of luck to you sir.
Leaving where?
-
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@momurda said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
This thread is full of persoonal bias from a lifetime of brainwashing and propaganda.
Why would someone who is hungover from a night of binge drinking be allowed to operate machinery and not someone who smoked a joint the night before? Why? Because you have been trained your entire life to think drugs are bad... that is the only reason you would say this.As for people who smoke not being hireable, well I don't know where yall live, but in Washington, many highly successful people smoke. Many successful people drink. Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation off the clock?
The data from Colorado for the past couple years backs this up: http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/25/early-lessons-from-marijuana-legalizatio
This is the reason I'm leaving too Nic. Best of luck to you sir.
I guess I should clarify a bit. Legalization imo should take place on the federal level ASAP though it never will... This state is flooded with stoners now... Not saying some aren't smart but they've managed to wreck the population entirely. I can't take the traffic or day to day commute anymore... For states looking to legalize in hopes of getting tax money it'll work but at what cost?
It'll even out. It's only a problem now because of the combination of massive American stoner culture combined with only a few states legalizing it. So the first ones got flooded. But now that California and Texas have legalized, that will slow down a lot. Once NY and a few more, like FLA, do, you'll notice the stoner migration almost entirely stop. It is only happening right now because there are so many people who want it and so few places to go (and the places to go are not very big, single major metro states.)
There is a reason why Europe doesnt have this problem even thought it is basically legal everywhere.
