Sen. Warren and End of the Minimum Wage Debate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

It mentions nothing of by whom we covered the definition of force COMPEL COERCE OBLIGE .

So with out a reason drug testing ia unconstitutional

Another point
shall not be violated, (AND) no Warrants shall issue, the right shall not be violated (AND) the warrant is a different issue [/quote]

In principle I tend to agree with you on the above. It’s very similary to the discussion SMH and I had on guns in the work place. Why can a business restrict your constitutional rights? I donno, I think both sides to that debate have their points. [/quote]

A business can NOT restrict your Constitutional rights. At least not to my knowledge.[/quote]

If they require you to check your gun at the door they can and they do.

262

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

It mentions nothing of by whom we covered the definition of force COMPEL COERCE OBLIGE .

So with out a reason drug testing ia unconstitutional

Another point
shall not be violated, (AND) no Warrants shall issue, the right shall not be violated (AND) the warrant is a different issue [/quote]

In principle I tend to agree with you on the above. It’s very similary to the discussion SMH and I had on guns in the work place. Why can a business restrict your constitutional rights? I donno, I think both sides to that debate have their points. [/quote]

A business can NOT restrict your Constitutional rights. At least not to my knowledge.[/quote]

If they require you to check your gun at the door they can and they do. [/quote]

Checking a gun at the door is a REASONABLE request, IMO , because some one could get hurt even by accidental discharge . But some one that smoked pot 28 days ago is not impaired and is no more a threat than if he never smoked pot in his life

263

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

It mentions nothing of by whom we covered the definition of force COMPEL COERCE OBLIGE .

So with out a reason drug testing ia unconstitutional

Another point
shall not be violated, (AND) no Warrants shall issue, the right shall not be violated (AND) the warrant is a different issue [/quote]

In principle I tend to agree with you on the above. It’s very similary to the discussion SMH and I had on guns in the work place. Why can a business restrict your constitutional rights? I donno, I think both sides to that debate have their points. [/quote]

A business can NOT restrict your Constitutional rights. At least not to my knowledge.[/quote]

If they require you to check your gun at the door they can and they do. [/quote]

Checking a gun at the door is a REASONABLE request, IMO , because some one could get hurt even by accidental discharge . But some one that smoked pot 28 days ago is not impaired and is no more a threat than if he never smoked pot in his life
[/quote]

You can’t have it both ways. Either all rights are protected or none are, which is it?

264

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
one way allowing them to search with out reason
[/quote]

The government does not do this, you do by choosing to work for someone.[/quote]

would it be coercion if an employer demanded sex from some one to keep a job ?

265

^Someone that smoke pot 3 months ago may have smoked away the brain cells necessary to operate heavy machinery safely. Because there is a possibility of an accident, no matter how small, I want everyone drug free for life. I think that’s reasonable since you don’t NEED drugs.

266

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

It mentions nothing of by whom we covered the definition of force COMPEL COERCE OBLIGE .

So with out a reason drug testing ia unconstitutional

Another point
shall not be violated, (AND) no Warrants shall issue, the right shall not be violated (AND) the warrant is a different issue [/quote]

In principle I tend to agree with you on the above. It’s very similary to the discussion SMH and I had on guns in the work place. Why can a business restrict your constitutional rights? I donno, I think both sides to that debate have their points. [/quote]

A business can NOT restrict your Constitutional rights. At least not to my knowledge.[/quote]

If they require you to check your gun at the door they can and they do. [/quote]

Checking a gun at the door is a REASONABLE request, IMO , because some one could get hurt even by accidental discharge . But some one that smoked pot 28 days ago is not impaired and is no more a threat than if he never smoked pot in his life
[/quote]

You can’t have it both ways. Either all rights are protected or none are, which is it?
[/quote]

I think the point is the employer could be liable if some one were shot on his property . Especially if he did not have a sign posted with his intentions

I said I can understand the employer would have liability if some were hurt by an impaired worker . But if some one smoked pot 28 days ago NO ONE could argue he was impaired 28 day later

I think the answer would be for the employer to post a sign stating any impaired workers should go home . It would relieve him of any liability . And a reason would be unusual behavior or the smell of a drug . Those are reasons . Random is the lack of reason

267

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Someone that smoke pot 3 months ago may have smoked away the brain cells necessary to operate heavy machinery safely. Because there is a possibility of an accident, no matter how small, I want everyone drug free for life. I think that’s reasonable since you don’t NEED drugs. [/quote]

REFER MADNESS , you need to research your argument . I contend SUGAR is more dangerous than pot and IMO sugar is a drug

268

and besides no one cares what you think , no more than some one caring what I think . The fact are the facts no one is impaired 28 days after smoking pot

269

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

It mentions nothing of by whom we covered the definition of force COMPEL COERCE OBLIGE .

So with out a reason drug testing ia unconstitutional

Another point
shall not be violated, (AND) no Warrants shall issue, the right shall not be violated (AND) the warrant is a different issue [/quote]

In principle I tend to agree with you on the above. It’s very similary to the discussion SMH and I had on guns in the work place. Why can a business restrict your constitutional rights? I donno, I think both sides to that debate have their points. [/quote]

A business can NOT restrict your Constitutional rights. At least not to my knowledge.[/quote]

If they require you to check your gun at the door they can and they do. [/quote]

They can’t force you to enter.

I see what you mean, I guess a business CAN restrict Constitutional rights, but I don’t think the Constitution was intended to apply to private property.

270

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
one way allowing them to search with out reason
[/quote]

The government does not do this, you do by choosing to work for someone.[/quote]

would it be coercion if an employer demanded sex from some one to keep a job ?
[/quote]

No. Prostitution laws(which I am not saying I agree with) do cover this, however.

271

I am also stating just for the record because it was the intent of this thread :slight_smile: If you flood the market with cheap Mexican labor the only way you can avoid a major assault to the low wage worker is to bolster the minimum wage :slight_smile:

272

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I think the point is the employer could be liable if some one were shot on his property . Especially if he did not have a sign posted with his intentions

I said I can understand the employer would have liability if some were hurt by an impaired worker . But if some one smoked pot 28 days ago NO ONE could argue he was impaired 28 day later

I think the answer would be for the employer to post a sign stating any impaired workers should go home . It would relieve him of any liability . And a reason would be unusual behavior or the smell of a drug . Those are reasons . Random is the lack of reason
[/quote]

You keep using this 28 days later example, but when does someone smoke weed & not work for 28 days?

If you are arguing from a liability stand point that’s fine. I doubt posting a sign would absolve the employer of liability, maybe, but I doubt it.

If you are arguing from a Bill of Rights perspective than I think you are being inconsistent, your argument based off the Bill of Rights is:

Piss test = infringement, illegal search
Checking guns = non infringement, of keeping/bearing arms

How is one an infringement and the other not?

273

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^Someone that smoke pot 3 months ago may have smoked away the brain cells necessary to operate heavy machinery safely. Because there is a possibility of an accident, no matter how small, I want everyone drug free for life. I think that’s reasonable since you don’t NEED drugs. [/quote]

REFER MADNESS , you need to research your argument . I contend SUGAR is more dangerous than pot and IMO sugar is a drug
[/quote]

Pitt, you want no guns in the work place because an accidental discharge MIGHT happen. Don’t you think that’s a bit silly too?

274

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
one way allowing them to search with out reason
[/quote]

The government does not do this, you do by choosing to work for someone.[/quote]

would it be coercion if an employer demanded sex from some one to keep a job ?
[/quote]

No. Prostitution laws(which I am not saying I agree with) do cover this, however.[/quote]

the employer did not offer money for sex he demanded sex to keep the job. never do it with prostitution laws . It would be covered by sexual harassment laws

275

^ Also yes we are talking about weed, but it would have to apply to other drugs, right? Or are we JUST talking about weed here?

276

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I think the point is the employer could be liable if some one were shot on his property . Especially if he did not have a sign posted with his intentions

I said I can understand the employer would have liability if some were hurt by an impaired worker . But if some one smoked pot 28 days ago NO ONE could argue he was impaired 28 day later

I think the answer would be for the employer to post a sign stating any impaired workers should go home . It would relieve him of any liability . And a reason would be unusual behavior or the smell of a drug . Those are reasons . Random is the lack of reason
[/quote]

You keep using this 28 days later example, but when does someone smoke weed & not work for 28 days?

If you are arguing from a liability stand point that’s fine. I doubt posting a sign would absolve the employer of liability, maybe, but I doubt it.

If you are arguing from a Bill of Rights perspective than I think you are being inconsistent, your argument based off the Bill of Rights is:

Piss test = infringement, illegal search
Checking guns = non infringement, of keeping/bearing arms

How is one an infringement and the other not?
[/quote]

the metabolite stays in your system for longer in some cases . A piss test does NOT tell when some one is impaired . A blood test is the only test I know of . And with a reason I would think an employer would be in his rights to test for impairment

277

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^ Also yes we are talking about weed, but it would have to apply to other drugs, right? Or are we JUST talking about weed here?[/quote]

yes alcohol and all other drugs including prescription and over the counter

278

^ Sounds good Pitt, I’m leaving the office and on vacation next week so this conversation is probably over. It’s been fun.

279

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^ Sounds good Pitt, I’m leaving the office and on vacation next week so this conversation is probably over. It’s been fun. [/quote]

Enjoy vacation :slight_smile:

280

[quote]pittbulll wrote

the employer did not offer money for sex he demanded sex to keep the job. never do it with prostitution laws . It would be covered by sexual harassment laws
[/quote]

Yes, the employer offered something in return for sex. I believe that is prostitution. Sexual Harassment is another one of the laws we have needlessly created.

Correction: It would actually be soliciting. I just meant that it would fall under laws currently meant for prostitution.