be_excellent_to_each_other

I was thinking urinalysis, which I was always told was ~30 days. It doesn't change the argument.

C-level or anyone in the company exempt? Do we monitor alcohol usage so closely? Would people tolerate it if we did? Federal law is the only reasonable basis for an employer to be testing for off the clock use of a drug that is legal or decriminalized in that state. Otherwise it's an invasion of privacy. And yes, it is, whether you tell me it legally is or not.

The moment there isn't federal law to lean on, I hope for and expect court cases predicated on the fact that there's no basis for an employer to care more about whether someone has smoked cannabis in the past thirty days than they do about whether that same employee gets blackout drunk every Friday and Saturday night - nor for that matter if the person responsibly drinks a couple beers after work some nights. (Or is someone pushing to detect alcohol use within the past 30 days as a reason to disqualify employment?)

Neither of those details of their lives speaks to someone's sobriety at work, and the basis for considering marijuana usage as somehow "worse" is rooted directly in the racist basis for policies enacted at the very start of cannabis prohibition.

The reality is that drug tests just like felony checks are very good filters for bad employees.

If this is true, drug testing should start at the CEO.

Edit2: Hanging onto this for 2 months before replying, or just like trolling through old cannabis discussions looking for an argument, or...?

It wasn't a comparison to Gotti except for a lamentation that the name has been used already. Though if it ends with Trump behind bars too, I can't complain. I'd like to feel some of this turns out to be more than just an annoying inconvenience for him.

fwiw in the future you can find out the path to your drives and their uuid if needed with

lsblk -f

I didn't realize that. That's disheartening.

It's hard for me to imagine 2024 not being the year they do.

I was about to say "How would people know who you meant?" but I'm pretty sure it would catch on.

Someone somewhere is already planning how they will get people to work around the clock this way, and someone else somewhere is probably desperate enough to feed themselves or their family that they'll take it when offered.

The entire apparatus of the United States justice department and executive branch has so far not succeeded in doing more than pissing him off about Jan 06 and election fraud, but this one woman has bloodied his nose repeatedly. Bravo I say!

Maybe this is going to be the one thing he sees actual consequences for.

Side note - pretty sure losing cases like these would have killed anyone else's political career and presidential aspirations. It's a real shame we already used up the Teflon Don nickname.

Yeah, I'd think outside of movie-style moments it's not something that makes sense 99.9% of the time, I just thought it was an interesting claim. It would have been more interesting if it were true. 😁

(to be clear I'm not the guy who made the claim)

I did find a great many links to articles about this one event, but so far nothing to support that they do it regularly.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/world-news/finland-stabbing-suspect-shot-in-leg

OK. I'm not claiming google isn't trying. I'm claiming it doesn't matter, and this is a solvable problem for end users. Most others in this thread are saying just FF and ublock does it, so I probably have overkill going on.

I only know this is happening with Youtube recently because of seeing other people talk about it.