Time for me to move on from Webroot
-
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@zuphzuph said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Nic said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@momurda said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
That's a lot of "ruling out" over a personal agenda not tied to corporate value.
What if it is a corporate value though - healthier employees.
But it's a necessary medicine for a lot of people. One of the reasons to ALLOW it is for healthier employees! Not that any drug automatically makes people healthier or unhealthier, but you are basically saying that you'd happily make innocent people unhealthy and guilty ones more healthy and/or that you want to filter out people who need medication which is just evil.
Imagine if you fired anyone who needed heart burn medication or medication for heart attacks to "eliminate the unhealthy"!!!
Well, if we limit the discussion purely to weed, I'll agree with you. But if we include cigarettes, yeah - no.
Sure, I'd STILL not be willing to limit in that way but it is SO much better to not hire cigarette smokers than weed smokers. If you were to choose one of the two, cigarettes make you a health liability, tend to take tons of breaks at work, smell bad, bother other workers, etc. But I'd still never drug test for tobacco INSTEAD of determining someone's value at work. Firing someone for dipping or whatever would be considered insane... and yet it is so much better than hiring based on someone not smoking weed.
Yep I agree with all those things.
I'm on your side Scott - I don' t think we should drug test expect for things you previously stated (doctors, heavy equipment operators). Now that said, if a company is going to "have you drive something while on the clock" it should be fine to require they truthfully answer - do you smoke weed/do drugs, if so, you can't be behind a wheel while on the clock for me, period. But sitting behind a desk - fine.
This thread is full of persoonal bias from a lifetime of brainwashing and propaganda.
Why would someone who is hungover from a night of binge drinking be allowed to operate machinery and not someone who smoked a joint the night before? Why? Because you have been trained your entire life to think drugs are bad... that is the only reason you would say this.As for people who smoke not being hireable, well I don't know where yall live, but in Washington, many highly successful people smoke. Many successful people drink. Why should there be some sort of discrimination between types of inebriation off the clock?
The data from Colorado for the past couple years backs this up: http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/25/early-lessons-from-marijuana-legalizatio
This is the reason I'm leaving too Nic. Best of luck to you sir.
Leaving where?
Leaving Denver for Boise.
I derived that after reading more
Seems like Boise will be soon to follow, it's in the pot corridor.
Don't tell me that...
You are in the wrong part of the country. Deep south and the NorthEast are likely to be the last to legalize. Or Arizona where they just hate everyone.
-
The upside to legalization is that it drops total usage. The problem is that if you legalize locally, this fails. You have to legalize broadly. It's just like gambling. Make only AC and Vegas allowed to gamble and they become major problems. Make gambling legal everywhere and the problem mostly goes away, like in Europe or Central America. You can gamble anywhere, so almost no one does.
-
DARE actually made kids do more drugs. Look at the case studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education
-
Every study shows higher drug use for kids in DARE than without DARE
-
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@BRRABill said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
DARE is more about making good choices now. They barely even touch on drugs and alcohol.
Never saw DARE as a kid.
It was pretty new when I was kid about 20 years ago
Ugh D.A.R.E how best to instill distrust in law enforcement then to tell kids they are going to die/be arrested if they try even one joint or have one drink. They jumped the shark right around when I went through their programs.
-
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
DARE actually made kids do more drugs. Look at the case studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education
That's what I'd always heard. They made doing drugs seem cool. Or, more importantly, made not doing drugs dorky. It was REALLY obvious that it was going to push drugs when I first learned about it. Everyone said the same thing - it was so ridiculous that it was pushing kids to do drugs. It also raised awareness at a time when a lot of people had zero exposure to drugs. It encourages those that never saw them to seek them out.
-
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Every study shows higher drug use for kids in DARE than without DARE
That does seem weird - why do you think that is so? rebellious nature of kids?
-
Wasn't DARE like a drug version of the Hitler Youth?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Wasn't DARE like a drug version of the Hitler Youth?
I wouldn't go that far... but it does have a lot of the same traits. Especially since you were supposed to tell an adult if one of your friends was using.
-
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Every study shows higher drug use for kids in DARE than without DARE
That does seem weird - why do you think that is so? rebellious nature of kids?
DARE didn't require it to be rebellious. It made authorities into the bad guys, made those that avoided drugs look like losers, branded those avoiding drugs as bad apples, made kids stand out for avoiding drugs, etc. It provided so much false information that it became clear that the anti-drug people were the bad guys and that all of the warnings about drugs were obviously from a questionable source.
-
@coliver said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Wasn't DARE like a drug version of the Hitler Youth?
I wouldn't go that far... but it does have a lot of the same traits. Especially since you were supposed to tell an adult if one of your friends was using.
So more like the drug version of McCarthism.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Wasn't DARE like a drug version of the Hitler Youth?
Seriously I Laughed out loud at that.
Sure, except that it's purpose was to try to keep kids away from something bad for them, like drugs.. vs another program which was to report parents that were speaking against the government. One has a good goal, the other is about totalitarianism.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Every study shows higher drug use for kids in DARE than without DARE
That does seem weird - why do you think that is so? rebellious nature of kids?
It provided so much false information that it became clear that the anti-drug people were the bad guys
This, this was one of the biggest issues with D.A.R.E it made, even me an impressionable and gullible kid, question them when I could fairly easily goto the library and see what they were telling us was false.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@coliver said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Wasn't DARE like a drug version of the Hitler Youth?
I wouldn't go that far... but it does have a lot of the same traits. Especially since you were supposed to tell an adult if one of your friends was using.
So more like the drug version of McCarthism.
You mean Americanism!
-
@coliver said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Every study shows higher drug use for kids in DARE than without DARE
That does seem weird - why do you think that is so? rebellious nature of kids?
It provided so much false information that it became clear that the anti-drug people were the bad guys
This, this was one of the biggest issues with D.A.R.E it made, even me an impressionable and gullible kid, question them when I could fairly easily goto the library and see what they were telling us was false.
Exactly, once they start lying to kids, the kids know that they are the bad guys.
-
@coliver said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@coliver said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Wasn't DARE like a drug version of the Hitler Youth?
I wouldn't go that far... but it does have a lot of the same traits. Especially since you were supposed to tell an adult if one of your friends was using.
So more like the drug version of McCarthism.
You mean Americanism!
Those kids need some additional freedom!
-
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Wasn't DARE like a drug version of the Hitler Youth?
Seriously I Laughed out loud at that.
Sure, except that it's purpose was to try to keep kids away from something bad for them, like drugs.. vs another program which was to report parents that were speaking against the government. One has a good goal, the other is about totalitarianism.
Both were about totalitarianism though. One acutely one not. It was a way for law enforcement to get in front of kids and try to control behavior. Just like most prohibitions it did exactly the opposite.
-
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Wasn't DARE like a drug version of the Hitler Youth?
Seriously I Laughed out loud at that.
Sure, except that it's purpose was to try to keep kids away from something bad for them, like drugs.. vs another program which was to report parents that were speaking against the government. One has a good goal, the other is about totalitarianism.
No, it was a program meant to get kids to turn in adults. DARE wasn't about getting kids off of drugs, just like the war on drugs wasn't. Both expanded drug use and solidified the power of cartels rather than moving power to local growers. DARE was never about stopping kids doing drugs. That's why it was like the Hitler Youth. Both sounded good at the time, but their actual motives were sinister.
-
@coliver said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Wasn't DARE like a drug version of the Hitler Youth?
Seriously I Laughed out loud at that.
Sure, except that it's purpose was to try to keep kids away from something bad for them, like drugs.. vs another program which was to report parents that were speaking against the government. One has a good goal, the other is about totalitarianism.
Both were about totalitarianism though. One acutely one not. It was a way for law enforcement to get in front of kids and try to control behavior of adults.
It was using kids as part of law enforcement. It put kids in danger, it put adults in danger, it made children into reports about something that they were being lied to about and could not really understand.
-
@coliver said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@scottalanmiller said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@Dashrender said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
@IRJ said in Time for me to move on from Webroot:
Every study shows higher drug use for kids in DARE than without DARE
That does seem weird - why do you think that is so? rebellious nature of kids?
It provided so much false information that it became clear that the anti-drug people were the bad guys
This, this was one of the biggest issues with D.A.R.E it made, even me an impressionable and gullible kid, question them when I could fairly easily goto the library and see what they were telling us was false.
huh, OK I'm clearly going to open a door for JB to slam me here - but either I totally didn't give a shit about what they were saying, or was to stupid to see that their statements were/seemed false. I tend to lean toward the first option, but I must leave some room I guess.
I never felt that what they were saying was false, but at the same time I never had the desire to even try it. I guess being an asthmatic and smoking alone could cause me to collapse, the whole drug thing was a non starter for me.
