Philosophical Weed Question

MMAPlayground.com » Off Topic » Off Topic » Philosophical Weed Question
Next Page »
BlueSkiesBurn
7/25/12 11:56:14PM
So, my roommates and I were all sitting around talking. My roommate's sister was over and smoking weed with us when the fact that she is in the middle of an interview process came up. My roommate asked her if she was worried about the drug test and her sister said she was gonna use a masking agent. My roommate said that she should show more discipline and just stop until the process was over.


Now, here's where the debate comes up. I said that it shouldn't matter either way if you plan to keep smoking weed (which we all do and will). It was a lie either way. Using a masking agent to cover up the fact that you don't smoke weed when you do isn't any different than stopping long enough to pass a drug test just so you can start smoking again. If anything, quitting temporarily is MORE inconvenient because you have to wait it out before applying. It can actually be detrimental if the job just opened and is likely to close quickly.

Anyhow, my question is: What are your thoughts on the matter? Would the "disciplined" or "responsible" thing be to quit in order to pass a test? Or should you just go the fast and easy route if you know it will work and are willing to pay for it?

Pookie
7/26/12 12:32:20AM
The thread title is my Bat Signal.

I think if you are guaranteed success either way, its all preference. Discipline and responsible are concepts and without the objective measurement of success, both are defined by each individual and are therefore up for interpretation. But, i do feel it is more "responsible" to quit smoking, because jobs will sometimes test for the masking agents themselves. And therefore the measure of success is higher if you can abstain.
infestructure
7/26/12 12:32:59AM
I don't think I would like working for a company that screened for bud smokers. I would use the masking agent, you are lying to the company anyway if you quit for the test and start up again.

Thank fuck for self-employment
pmoney
7/26/12 12:36:04AM
Wow this is a loaded question!

I think in terms of responsibility and discipline, quitting temporarily is unquestionably both. You save money by not smoking, as opposed to spending money on a masking agent and weed. Not to mention the strength of will to see the process through.

But is there a moral significance between qutting and masking? I don't think so. The only moral issue related to cannabis I can find with is its illegality. Its a crime against humanity.

Weed is the plant of life. It is edible. It makes better textiles than cotton or wood. (The United States Constitution is proof) It isn't physically addictive. You can't OD from it. We have cannabinoid receptors in our brains. The fact that it is still illegal is an afront to God, mother nature, and all that is sacred in my opinion.
Bubbles
7/26/12 12:49:39AM
I personally found it easy to quit for a while. I got high virtually everyday for like 3-4 years when I moved out and when I moved back home I decided to stop, and I never had a craving for it since. I still do it socially but its a year since I moved home and I had no troubles with it. My old roommate was probably the biggest pothead I know (bong hit every half hour when at home) and was a cronic smoker for like 10 years and he all but quit smoking last November (like me just socially) just because he wanted to. I don't believe in weed addiction, it's all a matter of if you want to or not.

You never know if the screening will test for masking agents or just pot or other drugs or whatever. IMO it's better to be safe and let it clear your system, pass the test, and then smoke again (if it is only tested during the interview process)...plus she will save a lot of money this way too. If its random drug testing throughout her tenure, then its up to her if she wants to risk using a masking agent or quit weed altogether if the job is important
Chael_Sonnen
7/26/12 1:24:56AM
Easy answer(s)

1) If you want to be an immature brat your whole life, go with the masking agent.

2) If you want to be a productive member of society and have a successful job, you will quit for the piss test.

Pretty simple.
prophecy033
7/26/12 1:31:33AM
If it were me I would quit and pass on my own. You wouldn't have to stress about all the variables
Bubbles
7/26/12 1:32:04AM
or she can "Thiago Silva" the piss test...I doubt her job has the resources the NSAC has
Chael_Sonnen
7/26/12 1:43:56AM
You have a Masters Degree - - - you shouldn't have to ask this question
BlueSkiesBurn
7/26/12 1:49:51AM
We aren't talking about what she should do. I don't care about that. I'm asking philosophical questions here.

No names attached, just philosophy.
cowcatcher
7/26/12 1:50:16AM
I haven't smoked in about 2 months for an upcoming test, so I'm taking the "sure" thing. It's not worth the risk if it's a good job, so to me it's a no brainer. I've seen masking agents fail in the past, I haven't seen abstaining lead to a failure(when someone truly abstained). So if it's a job worth getting, I think it is the mature, responsible, whatever thing to do to just quit...and then make damn sure you don't get hurt on the job or it might have been all for nothing. The shitty thing about my situation is that my hire date got moved back 2+ months so I'm going to be dry for longer than I planned on originally.
Boo_Radley21
7/26/12 2:10:15AM
The only moral thing to do is use a cup of your dogs piss

Oh wait....I'm not Thiago Silva
BlueSkiesBurn
7/26/12 2:37:01AM
You guys are totally missing the point of this thread.

It's a philosophical question about discipline. Is it really showing more discipline if you stop smoking to pass the test versus taking a masking agent? Neither "person" plans to stop smoking. It's just a open ended question.

FlashyG
7/26/12 2:45:18AM
IMO quitting temporarily definitely takes more discipline, but only because taking a masking agent requires none whatsoever.

Neither requires much at all, but I'd say abstaining even temporarily wins by default.
infestructure
7/26/12 2:45:53AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

You guys are totally missing the point of this thread.

It's a philosophical question about discipline. Is it really showing more discipline if you stop smoking to pass the test versus taking a masking agent? Neither "person" plans to stop smoking. It's just a open ended question.




Neither person 'plans' to stop smoking?

What about the person who's plan it is to quit for the test?

Of course quitting on your own steam shows more discipline than masking it. I love smoking, but there have been times I quit, and didn't want to, and those times were harder than using a piss clear kit.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/26/12 2:56:56AM

Posted by infestructure


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

You guys are totally missing the point of this thread.

It's a philosophical question about discipline. Is it really showing more discipline if you stop smoking to pass the test versus taking a masking agent? Neither "person" plans to stop smoking. It's just a open ended question.




Neither person 'plans' to stop smoking?

What about the person who's plan it is to quit for the test?

Of course quitting on your own steam shows more discipline than masking it. I love smoking, but there have been times I quit, and didn't want to, and those times were harder than using a piss clear kit.



That's what I'm saying. This is a philosophy question.

If a person plans to keep smoking after they get the job, are they more responsible if they quit only to pass the test than if they use a masking agent?

At the end of the day, both of them are lying. Personally, I think if you plan to keep smoking then you should just use the masking agent. It seems like less work than quitting for a prolonged period of time. As a matter of fact, quitting for a period of time isn't an exact science as every individual's body reacts differently. 30 days is more of a guideline than an exact time frame.
infestructure
7/26/12 3:19:40AM
I drove forklifts and elevating stock-pickers for many years before I found my true calling, and there was not a single day I wasn't blazed out of my brain before work, most days I nipped home for a bong at lunch too. Had zero major accidents in seven years, unlike all the straight edged dudes who were smashing stuff and injuring people left right and centre.

Am I a better driver when I'm stoned? I think so, but maybe because I realise I am high, so slow down and be more careful. What do you think?
Pookie
7/26/12 4:50:52AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

It seems like less work than quitting for a prolonged period of time.



That's what makes abstaining the more disciplined action. It's harder.
sparky
7/26/12 10:22:08AM
My answer is

Smoke kush everyday

warglory
7/26/12 11:14:46AM
I think in order to answer the question, we need an idea of what kind of job this person is interviewing for. If it's government related (esp teacher or social worker) operating heavy machinery, or some other position where being high could not only impair your ability to do your job, but result in big time trouble with your employer, I'd say take the responsible high road and just don't smoke.

However, if you're a desk jockey at a private company, or some other equal job that really shouldn't require a drug test to be hired, than I say smoke up and use the agent. I, like most Americans these days, don't think marijuana should be illegal, so if it doesn't effect your job, smoke up.

Work is an important part of life for most people, and regardless if it's something you really enjoy or really hate, you should respect the paycheck you get by doing your tasks correctly, and if that means putting down the bud because it may adversely affect the company you work for, or your ability to perform your job, do it.

And to be fair, I think people who go for liquid lunches in the corporate world and get a bit tipsy are being equally irresponsible, and probably need more challenging things to do during the day.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/26/12 2:19:51PM

Posted by warglory

I think in order to answer the question, we need an idea of what kind of job this person is interviewing for. If it's government related (esp teacher or social worker) operating heavy machinery, or some other position where being high could not only impair your ability to do your job, but result in big time trouble with your employer, I'd say take the responsible high road and just don't smoke.

However, if you're a desk jockey at a private company, or some other equal job that really shouldn't require a drug test to be hired, than I say smoke up and use the agent. I, like most Americans these days, don't think marijuana should be illegal, so if it doesn't effect your job, smoke up.

Work is an important part of life for most people, and regardless if it's something you really enjoy or really hate, you should respect the paycheck you get by doing your tasks correctly, and if that means putting down the bud because it may adversely affect the company you work for, or your ability to perform your job, do it.

And to be fair, I think people who go for liquid lunches in the corporate world and get a bit tipsy are being equally irresponsible, and probably need more challenging things to do during the day.



Haha, if you're asking about her, it was Best Buy.
prophecy033
7/26/12 2:45:06PM
I had applied for a job that required a piss test and so I started drinking tons of water. They schedule the test 7 days from when I applied so I had exactly 1 weeks of not smoking. I was a full time smoker with low body fat but I passed the test with nothing but water, on my own with no masking agent. I didn't have to worry about the temp, whether it was diluted....anything. If your so hard up to get baked that you can't stop long enough to get a JOB than you have peoblems. Don't even get me started on stopping to have a kid

george112
7/26/12 3:08:40PM
Everyone is different.

It's all preference in my opinion.


If someone is smart enough to absolutely know they will pass with the masking agent. Then why not do it .


Being disciplined or moral or whatever gets some people far in life but most of the world isn't like that. People are in it for themselves all around you. If people can find a way to cheat the system without getting caught they will do so until they feel they can get caught


There are also people with fear of getting caught with the masking agent thus resulting in them not using it and going the T-break route. People like this feel more at ease about the results because they feel they actually did something themselves (stopped smoking against their will) to pass instead of just doing a quick fix. They feel their will power will help them pass more then not using their will power


It's all about fear really most of the time.

Scared to fail drug test and no plans to stop smoking- masking agent

Scared to get caught using the masking agent- T-break



Those 2 fears usually influence which they Do
ghandikush
7/26/12 3:37:59PM
I would quit an use masking, if success was a factor. I dont see a problem with smoking everyday if youre guarrenteed xlean though. Bud is bud and our forefathers blew out in the white house brah
thevoodooninja
7/26/12 3:39:35PM

Posted by prophecy033

If your so hard up to get baked that you can't stop long enough to get a JOB than you have peoblems.





THIS... in bold letters



warglory
7/26/12 3:58:01PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by warglory

I think in order to answer the question, we need an idea of what kind of job this person is interviewing for. If it's government related (esp teacher or social worker) operating heavy machinery, or some other position where being high could not only impair your ability to do your job, but result in big time trouble with your employer, I'd say take the responsible high road and just don't smoke.

However, if you're a desk jockey at a private company, or some other equal job that really shouldn't require a drug test to be hired, than I say smoke up and use the agent. I, like most Americans these days, don't think marijuana should be illegal, so if it doesn't effect your job, smoke up.

Work is an important part of life for most people, and regardless if it's something you really enjoy or really hate, you should respect the paycheck you get by doing your tasks correctly, and if that means putting down the bud because it may adversely affect the company you work for, or your ability to perform your job, do it.

And to be fair, I think people who go for liquid lunches in the corporate world and get a bit tipsy are being equally irresponsible, and probably need more challenging things to do during the day.



Haha, if you're asking about her, it was Best Buy.



Seriously? They make you piss to work at Best Buy? See, MAYBE if she was working in the warehouse, I could understand, but if she is working the sales floor, I think that is just ridiculous. I guess they are worried someone is going to buy a laptop from a weird, grinning chick who can't wait for their lunch break? I mean come on.
FlashyG
7/26/12 4:04:26PM
Isn't Best Buy essentially a video game store?

You'd think having a pot smoking female sales associate would be more of an asset than they could imagine.
warglory
7/26/12 4:26:40PM

Posted by FlashyG

Isn't Best Buy essentially a video game store?

You'd think having a pot smoking female sales associate would be more of an asset than they could imagine.



They mostly are for large electronics like TV's and computers, as well as appliances.
hymiekooken
7/26/12 4:46:53PM
Very simple-----OPP-----which means, other peoples pee, I have passed multiple piss tests this way and have it down to a science. But to answer the question at hand, i would take the masking agent, if it works, especially if you plan to keep on partaking of the gonja.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/26/12 4:49:23PM

Posted by warglory

Seriously? They make you piss to work at Best Buy? See, MAYBE if she was working in the warehouse, I could understand, but if she is working the sales floor, I think that is just ridiculous. I guess they are worried someone is going to buy a laptop from a weird, grinning chick who can't wait for their lunch break? I mean come on.



You know what's funny about your scenario? That's EXACTLY where they're trying to hire her; In the computer department as a salesperson.

Almost every major retail chain drug tests, I think. They used to back when I worked for them. Though, that was over 8 years ago.

Still, you're right. It's absurd. Who gives a shit? I prefer my video game salespeople to be stoners. That way I know they play a shitload of games. Their opinions are more informed.
Pages: [1] 2
Related Topics