[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

COVID-19 - westslope - Feb 25, 2021 - 1:02am
 
Gardeners Corner - haresfur - Feb 25, 2021 - 12:37am
 
NETFLIX - Manbird - Feb 24, 2021 - 10:51pm
 
Steven Wilson - westslope - Feb 24, 2021 - 6:42pm
 
RP works great with LMS - SqueezeGuy - Feb 24, 2021 - 4:04pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Feb 24, 2021 - 2:54pm
 
World Music - deltaindia - Feb 24, 2021 - 2:47pm
 
Mars Exploration Rover Mission Status - R_P - Feb 24, 2021 - 2:33pm
 
volcano! - geoff_morphini - Feb 24, 2021 - 1:52pm
 
ALAC Stream Links? - rwyatt - Feb 24, 2021 - 1:32pm
 
Regarding cats - westslope - Feb 24, 2021 - 1:23pm
 
I am Thinking of: - oldviolin - Feb 24, 2021 - 1:20pm
 
Climate Change - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Feb 24, 2021 - 1:05pm
 
How's the weather? - GeneP59 - Feb 24, 2021 - 12:59pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 24, 2021 - 12:55pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - deltaindia - Feb 24, 2021 - 12:41pm
 
Race in America - R_P - Feb 24, 2021 - 11:37am
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - R_P - Feb 24, 2021 - 11:28am
 
Acoustic Guitar - rhahl - Feb 24, 2021 - 11:16am
 
Capitalism and Consumerism... now what? - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 24, 2021 - 10:23am
 
Offline Cache not working anymore - jarro - Feb 24, 2021 - 9:26am
 
Trump - westslope - Feb 24, 2021 - 9:05am
 
The No Phone Zone - Proclivities - Feb 24, 2021 - 6:56am
 
LeftWingNutZ - islander - Feb 24, 2021 - 6:35am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Feb 24, 2021 - 5:06am
 
Those Lovable Policemen - haresfur - Feb 24, 2021 - 12:55am
 
The All-Things Beatles Forum - kurtster - Feb 23, 2021 - 10:54pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Feb 23, 2021 - 7:14pm
 
American Justice - Red_Dragon - Feb 23, 2021 - 6:49pm
 
Questions. - Red_Dragon - Feb 23, 2021 - 6:32pm
 
Movie Quote - Antigone - Feb 23, 2021 - 3:56pm
 
Name My Band - rgio - Feb 23, 2021 - 12:26pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - sirdroseph - Feb 23, 2021 - 12:18pm
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - JrzyTmata - Feb 23, 2021 - 12:05pm
 
The Obituary Page - cc_rider - Feb 23, 2021 - 9:52am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Proclivities - Feb 23, 2021 - 9:36am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - jarro - Feb 23, 2021 - 8:53am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Feb 23, 2021 - 6:46am
 
Automotive Lust - kurtster - Feb 22, 2021 - 5:29pm
 
Photos you have taken of yourself - Ohmsen - Feb 22, 2021 - 4:46pm
 
Messages in a bottle. - Ohmsen - Feb 22, 2021 - 4:33pm
 
What did you have for lunch? - Ohmsen - Feb 22, 2021 - 4:03pm
 
2020 Elections - R_P - Feb 22, 2021 - 12:51pm
 
Ted Cruz - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 22, 2021 - 12:47pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Feb 22, 2021 - 12:09pm
 
Israel - R_P - Feb 22, 2021 - 11:47am
 
What is the meaning of this? - GeneP59 - Feb 22, 2021 - 9:19am
 
Brave Browser - rgio - Feb 22, 2021 - 8:12am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Feb 22, 2021 - 6:16am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Steely_D - Feb 21, 2021 - 12:38pm
 
Kodi Addon - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 21, 2021 - 11:58am
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - Zep - Feb 21, 2021 - 11:53am
 
songs that ROCK! - rhahl - Feb 21, 2021 - 10:44am
 
the Todd Rundgren topic - miamizsun - Feb 21, 2021 - 10:16am
 
Madonna's latest - miamizsun - Feb 21, 2021 - 8:15am
 
New Music - Proclivities - Feb 21, 2021 - 6:38am
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Feb 20, 2021 - 8:10pm
 
Get the Quote - Red_Dragon - Feb 20, 2021 - 5:30pm
 
Career Opportunities - GeneP59 - Feb 20, 2021 - 4:05pm
 
Thanks, Grizzly Bear! - Red_Dragon - Feb 20, 2021 - 1:17pm
 
Outstanding Covers - sirdroseph - Feb 20, 2021 - 9:28am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Lazy8 - Feb 20, 2021 - 9:26am
 
Queen - Red_Dragon - Feb 20, 2021 - 6:31am
 
Classical Music - rhahl - Feb 19, 2021 - 6:47am
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - sunybuny - Feb 19, 2021 - 5:58am
 
A Brave Woman - sirdroseph - Feb 19, 2021 - 5:23am
 
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon? - miamizsun - Feb 19, 2021 - 4:45am
 
Immigration - sirdroseph - Feb 19, 2021 - 4:39am
 
Terrorist Watch! - sirdroseph - Feb 19, 2021 - 3:17am
 
Questions I'd like to ask at tonight's debate - sirdroseph - Feb 19, 2021 - 3:12am
 
Republican Party - R_P - Feb 18, 2021 - 8:24pm
 
I play the drums... - KarmaKarma - Feb 18, 2021 - 8:04pm
 
NASA & other news from space - GeneP59 - Feb 18, 2021 - 6:30pm
 
China - Ohmsen - Feb 18, 2021 - 4:17pm
 
Pictures you have taken of your feet. *snort* - Ohmsen - Feb 18, 2021 - 3:39pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Illegal Drugs Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Post to this Topic
haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 8, 2020 - 12:55am

Hobart brothers decide to rob their dealer after running out of money and ice


Jake Laurence Ford, 25, and his younger brother Angus James Ford, 23, were sentenced in the Supreme Court in Hobart on Wednesday to two years and six months in prison and 14 months, respectively, after they stole almost $2,000 in cash and a quantity of ice from "a man who had been selling ice to them".

After regaining consciousness, the man reported the robbery to police.

Chief Justice Blow said the incident has had a "substantial psychological and financial impact" on the complainant.

The brothers were also ordered to repay the man $1,900
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jun 19, 2020 - 11:39am


westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jul 5, 2018 - 10:08am

Thanks haresfur.

Dumb, provocative question:  Are women who support the widespread availability of alcohol part of the 'rape culture'?  
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jun 30, 2018 - 12:30pm

 haresfur wrote:

Voluntary gun control - if you want to use medical marijuana you give up your guns. Arbitrary, because medical marijuana users are no more a threat than the average Oklahoman. 

 
...and probably far less of a threat than the average Oklahoman after a twelve-pack.
haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 30, 2018 - 12:21pm

 westslope wrote:
"voluntary, if arbitrary"

Huh?  Is there an inside joke I am missing here.

 
Voluntary gun control - if you want to use medical marijuana you give up your guns. Arbitrary, because medical marijuana users are no more a threat than the average Oklahoman. 
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jun 30, 2018 - 10:51am

"voluntary, if arbitrary"

Huh?  Is there an inside joke I am missing here.
haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 28, 2018 - 7:57pm

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
I'm ok with voluntary, if arbitrary, gun-control measures.
FourFortyEight

FourFortyEight Avatar

Location: The Dirty South
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 28, 2018 - 7:13pm

 kurtster wrote:

There is a reason that there are no guns in my household.  And this is why.

More reading from your article from a link posted in the comments.
Can you own a gun in Colorado if you smoke pot?

 
I'll stay where I'm at.  Where we have both.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 28, 2018 - 7:11am

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
There is a reason that there are no guns in my household.  And this is why.

More reading from your article from a link posted in the comments.
Can you own a gun in Colorado if you smoke pot?
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jun 28, 2018 - 6:33am

But alcohol is fine...
Exit2Eden

Exit2Eden Avatar



Posted: Mar 5, 2009 - 7:34am

 rosedraws wrote:

I'll happily agree to such a thing! No Problem.  Happy to oblige.  Excellent idea.  Hand me a contract, I'll sign it! 

But I am NOT submitting to a drug test. 
 

I don't think you have to worry about submitting to a drug test...just sign the contract and promise to behave! {#Angel}{#Lol}
rosedraws

rosedraws Avatar

Location: close to the edge
Gender: Female


Posted: Mar 4, 2009 - 2:15pm

 Exit2Eden wrote:
 
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
<CITE: 41USC701>

                       TITLE 41—PUBLIC CONTRACTS

                     CHAPTER 10—DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE

    "No Federal agency shall enter into a contract with an individual
    unless such individual agrees that the individual will not engage in
    the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or
    use of a controlled substance in the performance of the contract"


 
I'll happily agree to such a thing! No Problem.  Happy to oblige.  Excellent idea.  Hand me a contract, I'll sign it! 

But I am NOT submitting to a drug test. 

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Mar 4, 2009 - 1:18pm

 BillnDollarBaby wrote:

Actually it had a lot to do with the drugs... because the use on-site was ignored our call-back rate was through the roof, thereby eliminating profit.  If they had kept their use away from work, that would have been a different story.

And the kid in question did not live with the bosses - he was 39, so there was nothing "in the home" per se.

In construction, workplace safety is a huge issue.
 
Yeah, I was just saying, mismanaged biz, mismanaged employees, etc.

(former member)

(former member) Avatar



Posted: Mar 4, 2009 - 1:13pm

 hippiechick wrote:

That is why their company failed. less to do with the drugs, more to do with the lack of structure and ineffectiveness of the biz that carried over into the home.

I can understand a drug policy if the workplace safety depends on it. Otherwise, it's b.s. If an employee can come in and do their job responsibly, it's nobody's biz. And, do they do the same for alcoholics?
 
Actually it had a lot to do with the drugs... because the use on-site was ignored our call-back rate was through the roof, thereby eliminating profit.  If they had kept their use away from work, that would have been a different story.

And the kid in question did not live with the bosses - he was 39, so there was nothing "in the home" per se.

In construction, workplace safety is a huge issue.

Exit2Eden

Exit2Eden Avatar



Posted: Mar 4, 2009 - 1:12pm

 hippiechick wrote:

Corporate whores!
 
That's an understatement! {#Lol}

I've worked in state/local government agencies for many years, and all are required to have policies/procedures for compliance with the Drug Free Workplace Act. The "State of Maryland Substance Abuse Policy" went into effect in 1991 and hasn't changed a whit since that time! This resulted from the Federal Omnibus Drug Abuse Act of 1988.

The State of Maryland policy also addresses alcohol use...hence the generic "substance abuse policy".


hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Mar 4, 2009 - 1:11pm

 BillnDollarBaby wrote:
I used to work for a company that had a drug policy very carefully worded to the effect of, "Dont' do drugs on my time and I won't ask what you do on yours."  When I asked the boss about it, his reply was, "I was a cokehead when I wrote that.  The insurance savings isn't enough to matter.  And I can fire anyone that I even think has violated my policy, no questions asked."  It worked wonderfully for him.  He's extremely successful and his company has been in business for around 30 years.

Another company I worked for had no policy at all.  Drug use was rampant among management and employees.  They're bankrupt now.  Our jobs were a constant mess because our employees were using on the job.  The managers knew and said nothing because they were usually a party to it, or at the very least were buying from the employees.  It was a clusterf*ck.

I think pre-employment and random tests are useless in most cases, but having some drug policy is worthwhile.  It would have given company #2 a reason to get rid of a few bad seeds if they wanted to, but they turned a blind eye to everyone because one of the worst offenders was their kid

 
That is why their company failed. less to do with the drugs, more to do with the lack of structure and ineffectiveness of the biz that carried over into the home.

I can understand a drug policy if the workplace safety depends on it. Otherwise, it's b.s. If an employee can come in and do their job responsibly, it's nobody's biz. And, do they do the same for alcoholics?

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Mar 4, 2009 - 1:06pm

 Exit2Eden wrote:
 

When it comes to receiving federal funds, those rights go "right" out the window! {#Rolleyes}

 
Corporate whores!

Exit2Eden

Exit2Eden Avatar



Posted: Mar 4, 2009 - 1:04pm

 hippiechick wrote:

Wow! I wouldn't want to have my income reliant on that company, because I would not allow anyone to snoop around like that, and I have nothing to hide. I just believe in that old-fashioned thing called FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
  

When it comes to receiving federal funds, those rights go "right" out the window! {#Rolleyes}
(former member)

(former member) Avatar



Posted: Mar 4, 2009 - 1:00pm

 rosedraws wrote:
good stories bdb.

We found out that these crazy requirements are from the company (let's call it "B") that hires the contractors for the bigger company (let's call it "A"). 

So, the poor Art Director at A needs to hire freelancers, and has to use B, although they virtually never deal with office or white collar personnel. 

We also found that it appears that Company B is submitting to something called the "Drug Free Workplace Act"... which is a government thing that requires companies to do some sort of drug management in their company in order to receive federal funds over $25K.  I've never heard of this thing before!  Drug testing is not required, but it's one way of proving you're doing something, instead of the messy work of proving that you're providing education and support.

None of this explains the extreme privacy release they require for their background check. It's a blanket "you can look anywhere and everywhere for info about me and I will not hold you liable for any consequences that may result from you prodding around."  {#Puke}

 
  That sucks.  Haven't they heard the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"
I should probably note that the aforementioned boss is now a long-recovered cokehead.  My earlier post may not have been clear about that.   
Edit: noW, I typed not.    As in, "not a long-recovered cokehead" instead of "now a long-recovered cokehead."    double

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Mar 4, 2009 - 1:00pm

 rosedraws wrote:
good stories bdb.

We found out that these crazy requirements are from the company (let's call it "B") that hires the contractors for the bigger company (let's call it "A"). 

So, the poor Art Director at A needs to hire freelancers, and has to use B, although they virtually never deal with office or white collar personnel. 

We also found that it appears that Company B is submitting to something called the "Drug Free Workplace Act"... which is a government thing that requires companies to do some sort of drug management in their company in order to receive federal funds over $25K.  I've never heard of this thing before!  Drug testing is not required, but it's one way of proving you're doing something, instead of the messy work of proving that you're providing education and support.

None of this explains the extreme privacy release they require for their background check. It's a blanket "you can look anywhere and everywhere for info about me and I will not hold you liable for any consequences that may result from you prodding around."  {#Puke}

 
Wow! I wouldn't want to have my income reliant on that company, because I would not allow anyone to snoop around like that, and I have nothing to hide. I just believe in that old-fashioned thing called FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20  Next