Tit for Tat

[Gatekeeper777]

This may not be the place to discuss this, but I figure better then anywhere else. Ok Here it is.

If I get a job and my employer has government contracts it is MANDATORY drug testing. I have been random tested because I make a part for the government.
On the other hand.
Most politicians will vote on bills to become law and not even read what they voted on. Even Nancy Pelosi said " we have to pass it to be able to read it." WTF!!!!!!???????? So I was thinking. Why should I have to piss in a cup because my employer has a government contract but yet my PUBLIC SERVANTS do not have to.
I feel they should be tested (RANDOMLY) and must be breath tested before voting. If they are over the limit and are drunk then they must abstain for a no vote. After all when i am assembling a grenade and i screw up. I effect a limited number of people. The thrower and the recipient, BUT the congressman,senator or counsel person will vote on something that will effect all ! There is no law saying they should be tested. As a matter of fact they are exempt. They have a thing called ON YOUR HONOR! Show me a politician with HONOR! Should we demand testing from our elected officials?
The stuff that comes out of the capitol makes me think those politicians are HIGH. Should we test them too to see if they actually are? Give them a taste of their own MEDICINE.

[gypski]

I have always had the exact same sentiments. If I, or any one else is subjected to piss testing, so should everyone. Cops, judges, lawyers, politicians especially our leaders because they really do some wacky shit. But, because they are like the parents who say, do as I say, not as I do, in essence above the law, it just fuels the hypocrisy.

Just more bullshit controls placed on people to induce fear. Our elected and unelected leaders are some of the biggest criminals going, but they have the power to hide all their crimes or then claim immunity. :thumbsup:


This may not be the place to discuss this, but I figure better then anywhere else. Ok Here it is.

If I get a job and my employer has government contracts it is MANDATORY drug testing. I have been random tested because I make a part for the government.
On the other hand.
Most politicians will vote on bills to become law and not even read what they voted on. Even Nancy Pelosi said " we have to pass it to be able to read it." WTF!!!!!!???????? So I was thinking. Why should I have to piss in a cup because my employer has a government contract but yet my PUBLIC SERVANTS do not have to.
I feel they should be tested (RANDOMLY) and must be breath tested before voting. If they are over the limit and are drunk then they must abstain for a no vote. After all when i am assembling a grenade and i screw up. I effect a limited number of people. The thrower and the recipient, BUT the congressman,senator or counsel person will vote on something that will effect all ! There is no law saying they should be tested. As a matter of fact they are exempt. They have a thing called ON YOUR HONOR! Show me a politician with HONOR! Should we demand testing from our elected officials?
The stuff that comes out of the capitol makes me think those politicians are HIGH. Should we test them too to see if they actually are? Give them a taste of their own MEDICINE.

[gypski]

Here is an example of a crazy, bat shit brained politicians from toke of the Town.


["No man's life, liberty or happiness are safe while Congress is in session," Mark Twain once famously said, and much the same could be said of the Maryland Legislature. A Republican delegate has now filed an amendment to Maryland's proposed medical marijuana law which would allow patients to inject -- but not to smoke -- cannabis.

Never mind that marijuana's not water soluble, and never mind that smoking -- while not an ideal form of administration -- is a LOT safer than injecting. That's the kind of silliness you get when you have politicians writing rules for medicine.

Delegate Mike McDermott's amendment, if added, would require anyone with an medical marijuana authorization from a doctor to consume it through vaporization, ingestion or injection -- but smoking it would still be against the law.

"With the amendment, it becomes a medical issue entirely, but I can't vote for it in the present form," the clueless McDermott said, reports Jennifer Shutt at Delmarva Now.

The bill, with or without McDermott's amendment, is deeply flawed. It would make marijuana a Schedule II controlled substance and allow it to be prescribed by doctors in certain cases -- but since it only changes that rule at the state level, any doctor prescribing marijuana would be subject to losing his license, since cannabis is still considered Schedule I (no medical value and high potential for abuse) at the federal level.

That's the very reason that, in all 15 medical marijuana states and the District of Columbia, doctors and health professionals "recommend" -- not "prescribe" -- marijuana. Prescribing a Schedule I controlled substance could result in the loss of authority to prescribe anything else.

Last year, a medical marijuana bill was introduced and passed in the Maryland Senate, but got nowhere in the state House.

The bill introduced this year has 61 delegates and 22 senators supporting it, including Sen. Jim Mathias (D-Worcester).

"I support marijuana with a doctor's prescription in a controlled circumstance to help someone with a chronic disease," said Sen. Mathias, whose wife has battled breast cancer for 14 years. "We have been fortunate to do it through her strength, but some people aren't that fortunate."

Mathias said he will "have to look at the bill" when it comes to the floor before deciding whether to vote for it.

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said NORML is always in favor of reforming laws so patients can get safe access, but said law up for debate in Maryland is a mixed bag.

"What types of diseases it can be used for seems to be overly restrictive," St. Pierre said.

According to the version of the bill before the House, medical marijuana patients must have a chronic or debilitating disease that produces cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe or chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures or persistent and severe muscle spasms.

In 2003, the Maryland Legislature passed a law requiring criminal courts to consider the context of a defendant's use of marijuana in sentencing. If an individual successfully makes a case that their use was medically necessary, the maximum penalty allowed by law is a $100 fine.