EL the Famous

oh you.

Except for #1, ditto. Look, I know it's a stretch and exactly why I said there are a myriad of things that can affect productivity. That said, my point is not just based on actual productivity, but prioritization...this all sparked off of 'I wouldn't work for place that wasn't cool w/ me smoking pot on my free time'. Now, if choosing not to work at place because you want to be able to smoke a bowl versus that it's condusive to being able to balance w/ family life seems like an even comparison of legit priorities...by all means, smoke up. Also, as i've stated before, drug screening goes bey

I understand what you're saying, but to say someone who smokes pot or hash occasionally or does X at some club a few times, isn't potentially less productive than anyone else is incorrect. someone who doesn't do any of those things at all, is potentially more productive in the way there is no risk of them being arrested and therefore miss work. to show that you have disregard for the law, whether you agree it's a just law or not, shows the potential of risk and/or disregard for policy (i.e. coming into work). granted, you can say that this person up against someone who has a hardcore drinkin

Word up, RC. Keep on, keepin' on.

my earlier point wasn't really relative to a first job interview, but more so once you are actually working for a company and it becomes common knowledge that you have kids. futhermore, when the question comes up how mobile you are for relocation and/or can you travel for work on the drop of dime, etc...when you have kids, that may become an issue. point being, you can take advantage of not having the additional responsibility, provide better focus on your job and reap the benefit of being a strong performer. i'm not complaining that my kids are a disadvantage, you make choices when you deci

I agree 100%.

we turned off trhe producers 15 minutes in...both Lane and Broderick made me want to slit my wrists they were so annoying. horrible.

Most of my managers just have a policy of 'if the work gets done, i don't care how you structure your time to do it'. You don't, be that because you're focusing too much on your kids or whatever...you'll see the result in your performance review and resulting bonus. Also, my guess is plenty of potential (and qualified) employees who have kids have been passed over for jobs because they are parents...part of me understands that, especially if the job involves being chained to your desk or, conversely, constant travel. If you decide to have kids, you do so w/ an understanding that may not allo

i agree...to a point, as that doesn't account for performance/productivity while they actually are at work...or the recent trend in ability to telecommute as well...and the post G made. obviously that seems to happen a lot where you work, so I see your perspective.

but you're probably using 'pot' as 'drugs' in this case, yeah? again, drug screenings cover a lot of stuff i'd consider worse than booze...but that may just be my opinion. i completely agree that alcohol can be just as destructive to somebody's life if abused. my guess is if your an employer, you'd probably want to to go w/ the most qualified candidate who poses less risk of an issue ever arising. i do drugs vs. i don't do drugs...who's the bigger risk?

where is the science that says folks who smoke pot are more likely to not have a lot of responsibilities outside of work? or folks who have a lot of responsibilities outside of work are less likely to be potsmokers? No, I get that...but hiring somebody who's even a potential legal liability over someone who has kids, seems funny to me. Outside of that, all i'm saying there are a myriad of reasons outside of productivity to suggest that testing someone for drugs doesn't seem like that out there of a concept...and if smoking a blunt is more important to you than having to take and keep a

my point was, that you must be stoned to be that stupid to view something illegal (and that wrong) on the web at work (or in the case of child porn, period). i don't need to be a scientist to tell you that. EDIT: Graham, got it. jen, i'm seriously interested to hear your take on how, potsmoker or no, you find a woman w/out kids to be a better candidate for a job than someone who has them.

soooo...women w/ kids shouldn't work? i don't understand your rationale, but okay. also, raising two kids isn't illegal. if a company wants to regulate internet usage, they can either not allow it at all or set up restrictions to any sites not deemed neccesary to the job. personally, i'm surprised more don't. again, using the internet isn't illegal...unless your surfing child porn sites at work, which likely means you're also stoned on the job. also, drug tests screen for more than just pot...so anybody qualifying it's unfair because you only smoke a little weed seems a little wrong to me

i hear you, but that is another debate entirely. i'm not here to debate whether pot should or shouldn't be legal.

if they had a cable channel that just played that clip over and over, i'd watch it for hours on end.

oh yeah, no way i'd go into watching it thinking otherwise.

agree on using sick days when your well, that blows. but, what are you supposed to do when you actually have a sick kid? we no longer have a specific amount of 'sick' days or 'vacation days'...they put them together into one massive 'PTO' account. or, since pot is illegal (whether you agreee or not)...maybe they just don't want to risk hiring someone who is technically breaking the law. your risking your ability to actually show up to work to 'perform the job well' by involvement in something that could land you in jail. plus, you're completely sidestepping the possible insurance implic

Productivity is one thing. As they would likely be providing insurance coverage, they have a vested interest in your health whether you're on the job or not. Plus, your asking for a lot of faith from somebody to trust that your weekend coke binge couldn't infringe on your ability to make it to work on Monday. Granted, we're talking pot here...but to say that an employer shouldn't have at least nominal say on what you put into your body is kind of goofy. That said, like you put it, all depends on your priorities. My employer actually did away w/ random drug screenings due to cost savings. It

No doubt. The bar age entry at my alama matter when I was a freshman was 19, some of them all you needed was your school ID even if you were 18. You were still supposed to be 21 to drink, but they didn't regulate it. That changed a few years after I graduated, making a fake ID as important as your textbooks.

*cough, cough*

'Look, I swear that while i'm stoned out of my head when i'm not at work that i'd never, ever be that way at work.' 'Well, that sounds pretty good to me. You seem trustworthy, welcome aboard.'

Best Reason to Do Yoga. Work safe and extremely awesome. also, that yoga shit could allow you could pull out some of that crazy ass Sting Desert Rose tantric moves on the biddies when you take them back to the Ron Mahal.

I'm finding it impossible not to get a kick out of that Weird Al thing. I think that tune is going to be huge too.

We have remake of The Producers and Friends w/ $ from Netflix up on deck for home. Unless anybody wants to tell me The Producers sucks, then i'll tell my wife to watch later in the week.

Ha, funny. That's working title of my ABC made-for-TV biopic.