USA Drug testing on 4/21/12
- Thread starter 1993stoner
- Start date
CharlieBud
Active Member
1993stoner
Active Member
Dude wtf! Lmao
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
By the look in that cat's eyes there will be a castration sometime during the wee hours.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Besides what your buddy said, what else do you have?
I have been waiting around waiting for you to add any evidence since this thread was started.
I am having trouble wrapping my head around the scope of mandatory drug testing for ALL government jobs.
Something that comprehensive and controversial would have made the news. Some news. Somewhere.
I am a member of MPP and not a peep from them on the subject.
this is definitely not true. they would never be able to afford to test all government employees at the same time. they may choose to test some personnel but no way they're doing everybody.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
The jurisdictional issue is what I am having trouble with.
Local.
State.
Federal.
That's a shitload of employees working for a shitload of jurisdictions.
Even beyond the privacy concerns, I see major Constitutional roadblocks to any such action.
MixedMelodyMindBender
Active Member
I am sure in some court that would be entrapment. Especially if he/she had long hair 
Fuckin' hippies never forget 4/20 
Fuckin' hippies never forget 4/20
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Requiring all employees to submit to a drug test is not entrapment.I am sure in some court that would be entrapment. Especially if he/she had long hair
Entrapment is a defense in criminal cases.
This is Administrative.
1993stoner
Active Member
I have no evidence. For all I know he could have been lieng. I could care less. I was basically asking if it was true. I have a hard time believing it myself.Johnnyorganic:7259469 said:
MixedMelodyMindBender
Active Member
Oh wow.
In criminal law,entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agency inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment is possible in many forms of defenses.
Wikipedia is seriously crazy now days
Requiring all employs the day after 4/20 is a prolific case of profiling. If they were to be fired it would be wrongful because of the specifics that entrap the innocence of others. For all the law could know they were walking the sidwalks and prop 19 got in there system
Your Welcome.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Well, I do care.
And what you introduced in this thread has very serious implications, if true.
But you never bothered to produce anything to support it, Chicken Little.
So until then, I have no other alternative but to call 'Bullshit.'
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Okay, you cited Wikipedia as source.Oh wow.
In criminal law,entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agency inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment is possible in many forms of defenses.
Wikipedia is seriously crazy now days
Your Welcome.
But even ignoring that little detail, you only reiterated my point.
I highlighted it in red for you, Brainiac. Try bother reading anything you submit before you post it.
You're welcome.
1993stoner
Active Member
Well call bullshit dude. I was asking a question and giving a warning. Its better to be safe than sorry. If its not true then yay!!! And if it is then at least you were prepared.Johnnyorganic:7259604 said:
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Since you decided to edit your post as I was composing the rebuttal (bad form, by the way), I will to attempt answer the added content.Oh wow.
In criminal law,entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agency inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment is possible in many forms of defenses.
Wikipedia is seriously crazy now days
Requiring all employs the day after 4/20 is a prolific case of profiling. If they were to be fired it would be wrongful because of the specifics that entrap the innocence of others. For all the law could know they were walking the sidwalks and prop 19 got in there system
Your Welcome.
There still would be no entrapment.
1) Administrative, not criminal.
2) All employees would be tested, not just the hippies.
3) Walking though a cloud of smoke might be a defense, but it would be heard in front of an Administrative Judge, not in a Criminal Court.
And the level of THC in the system would be miniscule in your fantasy second-hand-high scenario. Easily documented. Easily defended.
MixedMelodyMindBender
Active Member
Okay, you cited Wikipedia as source.
But even ignoring that little detail, you only reiterated my point.
I highlighted it in red for you, Brainiac. Try bother reading anything you submit before you post it.
You're welcome.
Wow lady your a super internet forum fighting phenom. You read what I reiterated and left out the rest. If I was you I would seriously knock myself out, or at least break a neck!
1993stoner
Active Member
Maybe its only in texas. It could be just a state thing.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Okay....
BULLSHIT!
At least you are being consistent.
Why break a trend when it comes to your bullshit threads?