Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 dicriminalising it for medicinal purposes may be the go. But that means also having a law to the amount that can be grown and also a law that states you can not even give it away, and continuing the law of not allowing it for sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 I can also speak as someone who holds a top secret DOD clearance that the events you described sound very inaccurate. All jobs within the DOD that require clearances also require a sf-86 application where you disclose before hand any legal issues or illegal activity you have engaged in. Not to mention for clearances above secret they're looking at sending reps out to your points of contact for interviews. Sounds like bs to me. In our military, everyone is asked about drug use when they enlist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) In our military, everyone is asked about drug use when they enlist. I went to enlist for the australian reserves when i was younger and they asked how long since i had used drugs after i admitted to using drugs and i said 4 months and they said you need to be off it for at least 6 months to enlist. I can't enlist now due to drug induced mental illness. Edited June 20, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 Perigrina, the section you cite seems to indicate that the state has the right to legislate things which are not objectively moral, like age of consumption, speed limits and the such. I think everyone would agree that excessive speeding is inherently immoral because of the threat to oneself and others, but the state also has the right with its authority to mandate that people not speed at all - a much more subjective stance. I think the reason why they posted Leo's Encyclical is to reinforce the idea that the state can indeed be involved in the lives of it's citizens; they're warning off those who are excessively against the state. I got that it was a rejection of libertarian principles. I thought it was also referring to the Catholic principle that the state may tolerate things that are evil in themselves when it is for the common good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I got that it was a rejection of libertarian principles. I thought it was also referring to the Catholic principle that the state may tolerate things that are evil in themselves when it is for the common good. The key word here is tolerate. Not to be mistaken for condone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthfinder Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I got that it was a rejection of libertarian principles. I thought it was also referring to the Catholic principle that the state may tolerate things that are evil in themselves when it is for the common good. I'll go back and read it again, but I didn't get that impression - particularly because the general principle is you can't do any little sin to bring about a good (but then you get into the grey areas of double effect). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 I'll go back and read it again, but I didn't get that impression - particularly because the general principle is you can't do any little sin to bring about a good (but then you get into the grey areas of double effect). There is a distinction between doing sin and tolerating sin. For example, St. Thomas said that prostitution should be tolerated by the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 once upon a time I was recruited for a job with the feds. Me and like 15 other graduating seniors were in the room. Most local some flown into DC. Guy comes in and says if any of us have "ingested" (whatever that means) marijuana in the last 3 years, they can't hire you. And don't bother lying cuz the polygraph will getcha. Immediately like half the people get up and leave. that's half my competition *poof* gone. Just cuz they didn't smell of elderberries it up and obey the law. weren't serious enough about life. strikes me as a good test. But even if pot got legalized everywhere ... while people are getting high the clear-headed people will still be out stealing their jobs/girlfriends. So enjoy your joint, you lonely unemployed party animals. Bahahahaa! This my friends is what profound ignorance sounds like. When you have little to no grasp of the situation you say things like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 In our military, everyone is asked about drug use when they enlist. Although I have reason to believe that past marijuana use - more than occasional - does not disqualify candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 I can also speak as someone who holds a top secret DOD clearance that the events you described sound very inaccurate. All jobs within the DOD that require clearances also require a sf-86 application where you disclose before hand any legal issues or illegal activity you have engaged in. Not to mention for clearances above secret they're looking at sending reps out to your points of contact for interviews. Sounds like bs to me. i call bs on you sir. the sf86, deep dive and poly come AFTER the conditional offer of employment not before the interview. i dont know of any federal agency that makes you fill out a sf 86 before they give you an interview. because excuse me but what applicant would agree to that. anyway i don't think the guy pulled 3 years out of his pants randomly. don't think it was just for giggles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Bahahahaa! This my friends is what profound ignorance sounds like. When you have little to no grasp of the situation you say things like this. it is what it is, my friend. reality bites, but it remains reality. really though from a brass knuckles perspective I should be supporting legalization right? I mean if it would lead to more people smoking. I mean you don't want your doctor or your lawyer to be a user, obviously. But where my competition is concerned I should prefer to have them high and zonked out of their minds as much as possible. The better for criminal!Lilllabettt to steal their purse or cutthroat!Lilllabettt to destroy them in an election. Ever watch House of Cards? Drugs are SO BAD kids. SO SO BAD. Cancel DARE and whatever anti drug programs they got going now and make all the 5th graders watch the first season of House of Cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) it is what it is, my friend. reality bites, but it remains reality. really though from a brass knuckles perspective I should be supporting legalization right? I mean if it would lead to more people smoking. I mean you don't want your doctor or your lawyer to be a user, obviously. But where my competition is concerned I should prefer to have them high and zonked out of their minds as much as possible. The better for criminal!Lilllabettt to steal their purse or cutthroat!Lilllabettt to destroy them in an election. Ever watch House of Cards? Drugs are SO BAD kids. SO SO BAD. Cancel DARE and whatever anti drug programs they got going now and make all the 5th graders watch the first season of House of Cards. I am starting to find your posts just a little bit horrifying. :detective: Edited June 21, 2014 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) it is what it is, my friend. reality bites, but it remains reality. really though from a brass knuckles perspective I should be supporting legalization right? I mean if it would lead to more people smoking. I mean you don't want your doctor or your lawyer to be a user, obviously. But where my competition is concerned I should prefer to have them high and zonked out of their minds as much as possible. The better for criminal!Lilllabettt to steal their purse or cutthroat!Lilllabettt to destroy them in an election. Ever watch House of Cards? Drugs are SO BAD kids. SO SO BAD. Cancel DARE and whatever anti drug programs they got going now and make all the 5th graders watch the first season of House of Cards. If I had a penny for every time someone said a lot of nothing then Id have two pennies so far in this thread. I am starting to find your posts just a little bit horrifying. :detective: Drugs. Lilllabettt might not like marijuana but she is on something far worse. Edited June 21, 2014 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 I am starting to find your posts just a little bit horrifying. :detective: From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent. -- Tales of H.P. Lovecraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Drugs. Lilllabettt might not like marijuana but she is on something far worse. Excuse me, but I'm high on life. If you smoke marijuana Kevin Spacey will [spoiler alert] gas you in your own garage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now