Perhaps the issue is the state, or perceived state of psycho-activity.
We accept cafeine and nicotine usage in the workplace, as well as other psycho-active substances because we don't perceive them as having a potential negative impact.
Imbibing alcohol in our own time is not perceived as having a potential negative impact, as long as there is none, or little remaining in our system by the time we are at work. Marijuana, however, takes much longer to metabolise and can remain in our system for up to a month.
Just as with having legal limits of alcohol in the blood for driving (although that in itself is controversial given the moment there is a measurable amount of alcohol in the blood, there is a measureable detriment in driving performance) should we have a better understanding of the impact of marijuana usage and some kind of legal limit of substances in the system in certain situations?
Also, if an employee is contracted to not be under the influence of certain psycho-active substances in the workplace, then whether those substances are legal, or not, the employer has the right to terminate. I have noticed contracts are getting less and less popular however.
These days it tends to be revving the engine as you're crossing the road at the lights to make you start and look round. That pisses me off.
Although I do find it funny when youngsters beep, or shout at me from behind, but realise when I turn round I'm old enough to be their mother. It's the expression on their faces.
On this side of the pond it's associated with working class, or nouveau riche culture trying to project glamour, style and good-breeding and failing miserably. It's often used as a theatrical stereotype.
And as Berrie mentioned, it's associated with poor behaviour, particularly someone who believes themselves to deserve more than they do and who tantrums when they don't get what they want.
Well, I could ban you if you promise to private mail me grovelling to get back on to my spectacular thread and promising to forsake all false godesses and only worship me.
As the OP, I have had the power bestowed upon me to end your contributions and continuance in this discussion.
My qualifications for this position of power are that I created this thread, it's all mine *ahem* it belongs to me *ahem* *ahem* and I can do as I please. *ahem*
jac_the_gripper Forum Posts (5,363)
RE: Fair or unfair?
Perhaps the issue is the state, or perceived state of psycho-activity.We accept cafeine and nicotine usage in the workplace, as well as other psycho-active substances because we don't perceive them as having a potential negative impact.
Imbibing alcohol in our own time is not perceived as having a potential negative impact, as long as there is none, or little remaining in our system by the time we are at work. Marijuana, however, takes much longer to metabolise and can remain in our system for up to a month.
Just as with having legal limits of alcohol in the blood for driving (although that in itself is controversial given the moment there is a measurable amount of alcohol in the blood, there is a measureable detriment in driving performance) should we have a better understanding of the impact of marijuana usage and some kind of legal limit of substances in the system in certain situations?
Also, if an employee is contracted to not be under the influence of certain psycho-active substances in the workplace, then whether those substances are legal, or not, the employer has the right to terminate. I have noticed contracts are getting less and less popular however.