User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.1706 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
More open-minded liberalism at work! It's easy to be confident in your views when you don't allow them to be challenged.
Not often. About as often as drunk drivers (very often a drunk driver has engaged in other recreational drugs as well) cause injures/damage on a percentage basis. I'd suggest that the greatest drunk driver impairments usually involve other drugs, but those aren't charged because there is no good quantitation on them. "In the system" just doesn't do much.
The plural of "opinion" is not "fact".
;op
You pretty much answered the question as I asked it. I wasn't assuming a contradiction, I was genuinely interested in the views of the pot legalizers on the question of cigarette-smoking. I meant by "liberalization" the ways in which you discussed it.
1 in 100 people check into drug rehab for marijuana addiction every single year? I find that very hard to believe.
Thanks for the answer. My impression (which is based on my experience which, I suppose, only holds weight with me) is that the legalization would not increase incidences of stoned driving.
That's more like one in a thousand.
Isn't it though? It's as sweet as hitting the mute button on Thom Brennaman and Steve Lyons.
What's wrong with a ban on transfats? If the governments sees there are public health problems, it should do nothing to address them?
Yeah, and twinkies are great for you...obesity isn't a problem in this country...there's no public health crisis...
Whether there is or not, who cares? If someone is eating too many twinkies, that's his fault. No need to pass regulations which affect the rest of us. See how this works?
Oh yeah. Never mind. Ignore the fact that I'm a Finance major.
Require disclosure. There's a hell of a lot of room between total ban and "nothing."
Smoking has dropped off significantly in the city since the ban.
If they're interested in saving people from themselves they would do more good by banning the bars.
That's all I ask. Some assurances that if a subway conducter wrecks a train, we need to be able to determine if it was just an accident or if he was operating the train above established impairment levels.
Drinking and driving with a 0.04 BAC is legal. Doing so with a 0.11 BAC is not. Establish some BTHCC levels. It's not that complicated. It's more than pro-pot people are too F-N lazy to do it.
Heck, "legalizers" armed with "we can control usage behind the wheel of a car and in the workplace" data phenomenally strengthen their position.
These other arguments "too tired" "prescription drugs" are all well and good, but they argue *against* DUI laws. DMN at least has the balls (or lack of brains) to admit he's FOR drinking and driving without limits (as long as there is no accident). He's at least *against* preventative law enforcement. I don't know about Crosby or Yeargh or Andere.
Hello?
It is relevant because a person who drinks to reasonable intoxication an hour before the game ends is probably still impaired when he gets into his car. A person who smokes marijuana to reasonable intoxication is likely unimpaired one hour later.
So you are opposed to DUI laws because there are a few incidents where they fail?
I'm not sure. I'm fine with reckless driving laws, and driving with a certain degree of impairment is reckless. I'm not convinced we need a different standard (and set of punishments) for alcohol impairment as opposed to "other stuff" impairment.
First, there is intent. When you get high and drive, you intend on committing a crime. When you drive, but happen to be too tired, that's different. DMN claims we don't arrest people for things they "might" do, but I'd suggest a person with a few kilos of cocaine is arrsted for intent to distribute every day. there are plenty of "intent" crimes.
"Intent to distribute" is shorthand for strict liability enforcement of the crime of possession. It's not a crime of intent, it's a crime of commission; the person is discovered holding enough of an illegal substance to be convicted of X degree possession. It's like being found with an unregistered handgun; we aren't punishing the guy because he wanted to commit a crime, but because he did commit one.
The policy reasons for setting that level of punishment for that crime are theoretically because of a suspicion that no individual would possess that much for his own personal use.
Florida is particularly harsh in its sentencing: according to NORML's website, possession of over 20g is a felony. That's less than an ounce, which is a not-unreasonable amount for a habitual user to get solely for personal use.
Impaired judgment is impaired judgment, but if I make a mistake at work because I am tired, that's simply not the same as if I made the mistake because I was drunk or high. Intentional impairment and then proceeding to endanger others should be a crime - whether or not you have to kill anyone first or not.
The crime should endangerment of others by driving while impaired.
That the impairment is intentional can satisfy a standard of proof, eliminate certain defenses, and create a less sympathetic defendant who is more likely to get the maximum allowable sentence.
The secondary, non-criminal penalties are different as well. We don't suspend a person's license for driving while exhausted; we do suspend a license for driving while highly intoxicated. But a suspension of a license isn't a criminal penalty.
We're likely to end up in the same place: the driver who passes a BAC test gets off unless there is enough other evidence to prove impairment; the driver who fails a BAC test is highly likely to be convicted as the BAC test alone satisfies the standard of proof unless somehow rebutted; the driver who fails a BAC test dramatically gets an even more serious penalty.
I agree.
I'm 100% certain it would. 100%. There are people that read and post on this board that smoked pot in college and before they had a reputable job that would ABSOLUtELY take it up if legalized. People that drink and drive now, were pot legalized, would go to a bar, drink their beers, fire one up, and then drive home. They only had two beers, and so their BAC is still 0.04, and the bloodshot eyes are assignable to a smoky bar and a few beers. But the level of impairment would be greater than is readily detectable due to the lack of measurement.
I STRONGLY believe that MOST people that smoke pot drink alcohol, and usually together. When 22 yo just got jobs go to all these bars that are full every day from 5 pm to 9 pm, and then all weekend wouldn't just be people drinking, but with legalized pot (and no BTHCC controls/detection risks) now *also* fire on up. The level of impairment is compounded *and* there is a huge increase in stoned drivers. Not smashed stoned, but impaired.
FWIW, I don't think 0.08 BAC is "drunk". It isn't for me.
The Dude says that's not fair. I mean, if I buy 10 cases of beer, I don't possess that much for anything other than personal use. Just over more time. that to me is clearly written as a crime about intent.
That the impairment is intentional can satisfy a standard of proof, eliminate certain defenses, and create a less sympathetic defendant who is more likely to get the maximum allowable sentence.
The secondary, non-criminal penalties are different as well. We don't suspend a person's license for driving while exhausted; we do suspend a license for driving while highly intoxicated. But a suspension of a license isn't a criminal penalty.
We're likely to end up in the same place: the driver who passes a BAC test gets off unless there is enough other evidence to prove impairment; the driver who fails a BAC test is highly likely to be convicted as the BAC test alone satisfies the standard of proof unless somehow rebutted; the driver who fails a BAC test dramatically gets an even more serious penalty.
And until you can establish these standards around THC, legalization (remember - this isn't *just* about driving - it is also about working) just isn't a good idea.
Sure your lawyer is drunk, but is he high? Every walk of life that involves compentecy doesn't allow one to be drunk while performing it - the smell of alcohol is enough.
I am really amused that you all think you can tell when someone is high. Sure when someone is WAY ###### up, but do you really think you can tell when someone has 0.06 BAC and someone has 0.12 BAC (you cannot). So where is the line for being high enough to drive and too high to drive? You guys can "just tell"?
I guess kevin was right about being able to tell who was doing steroids "just by looking at them".
d8-D
I don't see why it's the city's concern to worry about who is smoking and who is not.
And you're looking at this from the wrong end: you're looking at this from the perspective of smokers (or second-hand smokers) rather than from the perspective of the bar owner. The city doesn't own the bar. Nobody forces you to go into the bar; if you don't like the second-hand smoke you can stay out. I am particularly amused when people argue that this is a _good_ thing for the bar owner, since now (the claim is) more people go into his bar. Umm... if the bar owner thought that banning smoking helped his business, he'd have already done it. In any event it should be his decision.
What's wrong with a ban on transfats? If the governments sees there are public health problems, it should do nothing to address them?
Pretty much, yes. We're not talking about dumping toxic waste in a river here.
I don't think we're that far apart on this. If want to eat twinkies, fine. I don't understand it, but whatever. If people eating too many twinkies are creating problems for society though, then we need to figure out a solution. Healthier twinkies? Campaigns to raise awareness of the badness of twinkies for people when consumed in large quantities? Ban on marketing twinkies to children under 5? I'm not against legalization, but I have what I think are legitimate fears about it. In principle I think all drugs should be legal. But then I think about what would happen to people if they could go to the corner store and buy cheap cocaine, or over-the-counter meth, and the answer has to be more complicated than "legalization plus regulation" because that isn't working with a lot of currently legal substances. You would need active public education campaigns telling people the real dangers of these drugs, which flies in the face of the conventional (wrong) equation of "legal" with "good."
There is a long and powerful tradition against so-called 'intent' crimes in the Common Law system.
Yes, possession with intent appears to contradict this but I assure you that 1) it's a rare case, 2) I think here it's more of a lazy way to get someone for attempt with the smallest level of proof as it does require the criminal act of possession. As such the ARREST itself is not due to any illegal act they might do.
I do not advocate driving while stoned. That said, my impression is that marijuana would not substantially impair driving except at very high dosages, the kind where Officer Friendly would not have let that guy go.
You know how people get all retarded drunk at your county fair and every year someone gets stabbed? Picture the average Bud drinker plastered plus he's had a few joints. It's not fun to be around.
First of all, I don't think we should cater our laws to the lowest possible denominator. We're not outlawing beer because sometimes an idiot abuses it and then stabs someone.
Secondly, the characteristics of the high are totally different. People just don't get stoned and violently attack other people. Maybe they violently attack a bag of cookies. People do get violent when drunk.
Finally, there are a sizable number of people that would drink substantially less having access to legal marijuana. It's no secret that most of the population likes an occasional buzz. There have been plenty of times when alcohol has been the drug of choice only because marijuana was unavailable or it wasn't safe to use without risk of being caught.
Now I know people that only pour out a carafe of wine with the intention of stopping there (or marking their whiskey bottle for drinking their "Fulls Irish Dew").
So, I need a good example of why this isn't the case, and maybe you said it and I missed it, but "intent" is a big portion of the drug trade, AFAICT.
Define "very high dosages". Is 0.08 BAC "very high dosages"?
This is foolish. The city regulates all businesses in some form or another. The city gives out liquor licenses. The city already regulates what businesses can and can't do. Should businesses be allowed to not serve Mexicans if they decide it's intheir best interests? According to the rationality behind your argument, that's their decision. If they think it's best for their business, then that's their call. Besides, that wasn't the argument; they turned it into a labor issue, which I think was a smart move. Employees have the right to a smoke-free workplace, and bartenders shouldn't be any different.
Pretty much, yes. We're not talking about dumping toxic waste in a river here.
Follow your own logic. 50 years ago, I'm sure you would've said that the government shouldn't tell business where they can and can't dump their toxic waste. But we know better now. You're drawing the line where it used to be; we didn't used to know what waste had what health impact; we do now, so we regulate it differently. We have increasing evidence of how bad transfats are, so we take steps to limit how much people can be exposed to them. I'm not sure where the problem is.
Personal freedom in your model seems to be the right of advertisers to convince people to #### themselves up. That's not freedom, it's ####### slavery.
Yes, they do. Just not the sample you know. The effects of being high vary widely. There are sleepy drunks, grumpy drunks, sneezy drunks, dopey drunks, and there are those for being high. They aren't all "mellow". That's a complete mischaracterization. I know plenty that get hyper after smoking - they are so happy, they want to play like a puppy. Which means wrestling and jumping on people. That's not good, and leads to fights.
This might be the issue in a nutshell.
Why is there a conventional, and wrong, equation of "legal" with "good"? Because the government has spent many decades attempting to control the use of bad-for-you substances by criminalizing them. If instead, the government didn't criminalize these things, but legalized them under sensible regulation, and also maintained a fact-based public education campaign, people would have a better-reasoned interpretation of the relationship between "legal" and "good."
Which is pretty much precisely the situation with tobacco.
And quite the opposite of the situation with pot, which is criminalized, and the public education campaign the government sponsors is non-fact-based scare-tactic fear-mongering nonsense. To the extent that people believe this propoganda, it stimulates the wrong equation of "legal" with "good," and to the extent that people see through it, it undermines the government's credibility.
I think it's a HUGE number that would drink less and smoke more - and a lot of that is due to the rate at which one gets high. And the subsequent vomiting or bloated feeling. And there is the bonus that you can't "proof" I'm high, so a decent lawyer can get you off (or have the charges reduced) from "reckless endangerment" with a 0.14 BAC to "disorderly conduct" with a 0.04 BAC and a load of THC.
I am certainly not speaking as someone who may or may not have experienced this type of lawyered engagement.
I didn't mean rare in actual occurrence. I meant that it is rare if you look at all laws. The frequent applicability of the law is probably why it exists. It saves the authorities from having to expend more resources to prosecute, etc.
So, I need a good example of why this isn't the case, and maybe you said it and I missed it, but "intent" is a big portion of the drug trade, AFAICT.
Well, intent is a necessity for virtually every crime [there are a few like statutory rape which are totally act based] so it's a big part of basically all law enforcement if that's what you mean.
As a factual matter, intent is inferred by juries all the time who are asked to decide if a person intended something. My intuition is that the drug trade is treated differently (via the rubber stamping of intent) because the crimes are so common in number and because most people would say "of course they intended to distribute it!"
Give them the right to wear a painter's mask at work.
Personal freedom in your model seems to be the right of advertisers to convince people to #### themselves up. That's not freedom, it's ####### slavery.
What makes you think that the government is any better at these decisions than consumers what with our living in a democracy and all.
Probable cause is the standard for an arrest (if we ignore things like Terry stops which aren't arrests in any case).
No, it is not grounds for an arrest. You can intend to kill me via voodoo doll but this is not a crime even if you believe it will be effective.
Employees have the "right" to find another job if they don't like that smoking is allowed in the workplace. Again, if the employer decides that he can't attract enough quality employees because he allows smoking in the workplace, he'll quickly ban smoking anyway.
Mind you I'm not a smoker myself. I just don't like when the government oversteps its bounds.
Think about the government having to let all these "bad" pot smokers and pot dealers out of jail after the policy change. "Sorry guys, turns out it actually isn't that bad. We're cool, right?"
I simply don't agree. The number of cases where a DWI results in serious injury or property damage where it's anywhere on the fringes are pretty small. I'm sure there is a documented case of a guy who blew a .06 that killed someone, but the overwhelming majority of articles you read about drunk driving are people quite far over the limit.
Sure your lawyer is drunk, but is he high? Every walk of life that involves compentecy doesn't allow one to be drunk while performing it - the smell of alcohol is enough.
How do you smell the alcohol on your lawyer's breath when he's drafting your papers? On the phone with you taking information?
And if the lawyer had a beer with lunch, suddenly he's incompetent? (I wouldn't because of the possible appearance of impropriety, but some people do.)
You can tell serious intoxication whether it's alcohol or some other drug. You usually can't tell "barely intoxicated" on alcohol without some sort of test. Is barely intoxicated really the trouble zone?
Why would you put murderers in " "? I think that is just as offensive as ANYTHING I've ever read on this site. Including the #### I spew.
Typical horseshit assertion. The "public" whoever that might be, is never as thick as Steve likes to pretend it is. The "public" I would venture, has no stupid assumption that "legal" = good, but instead assumes "legal" = permissible. And, like a good liberal who doesn't like his views challenged, he thinks his arrogant assertions about the world will be corroborated by just a little more education. If the gov't would only just teach people, they'd see exactly what Steve does.
Sorry I have to address this in the 3rd person, but Steve's literally confirmed what BL said about him ages ago: that he likes to speak to echo chambers and despises argument.
In libertarian utopia maybe. But if it wasn't for the government banning smoking in places, there'd still be smoking in most offices. I guess you hate OSHA too- "if people don't want their arms cut off from faulty equipment in the workplace, maybe they shouldn't work." You fail to understand that there's a surplus of labor, so management can usually do whatever it likes to workers. Being a bartender shouldn't be a death sentence. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one...
When one government regulation doesn't make sense to you, you argue against it on the grounds that the government shouldn't regulate, except when it makes sense to you.
Mind you I'm not a smoker myself. I just think all bartenders deserve to die of lung cancer.
First of all, Matt, the point is to highlight the stupidity of the view being espoused. I agree they're real murderers, just as I believe John Brown was, despite the righteousness of abolitionism.
Second, so, you recognize that you spew offensive ####. Why do you do it, then?
But if a guy doesn't like cigarette smoke he can get a job in a smoke free bar. They had those in Connecticut pre-ban.
Yeah, I edited it for better flow.
I'd put Brown in the same category as I would The Unabomber, which is not the same category as MLK.
The crime is "possession with intent to distribute." Intent is not the crime, but an aggravating factor.
There is no "intent to distribute" crime in itself.
The example you give of four small doses triggering PwItD is a loser of a case for the prosecutor because the intent to distribute is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why there are triggers on certain amounts; it removes the obligation for the prosecution to prove the extra element (intent) necessary for the aggravated level of possession.
Is 0.08 BAC "very high dosages"?
No, and the overwhelming majority of people who drive at .08 BAC are not substantially impaired. .08 is usually barely intoxicated.
I know plenty that get hyper after smoking - they are so happy, they want to play like a puppy. Which means wrestling and jumping on people. That's not good, and leads to fights.
I have never met these people. I've seen people exhibit those effects from alcohol but visible hyperactivity is pretty rare in my experience and even when it is present, it's hyperactive talking or hand manipulation, not wrestling or jumping on people.
Everything I've read says you're actually better off smoking, which is what a lot of people wind up doing. I've known bartenders who never smoked that developed asthma. It sucks. It depends on the bar too; a bar that isn't crowded and has high ceilings isn't as bad as a tint bar packed with heavy smokers.
They do have a couple (I can't remember how many) of licenses for tobacco/hooka bars in NYC.
Ok, I've never read any of these studies, only media reports of these studies. Doesn't this strike anyone else as enormously counter-intuitive? I'm aware of the cigarette "filter" (LOL), but doesn't it just seem crazy that the person most subjected to the smoke is not the smoker, but the secondary recipient? Anyone have a link to one of the actual studies?
According to the law, yes.
What he actually said was "We don't arrest people because they 'might' do something."
Intent is one _element_ in a crime (unless it's a strict liability crime), and refers to the defendant's state of mind. There's specific intent and general intent. Specific intent is what you're thinking of; it requires both the purpose to commit the prohibited act _and_ a further purpose (e.g. burglary is breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony therein).
But just because you're committing one crime (smoking pot in a corner) doesn't necessarily mean you have the further purpose of committing another crime (driving while impaired). Specific intent is a _special_ state of mind, along with a physical act. Arresting someone for smoking pot on the corner with the further purpose of driving while impaired makes about as much sense as arresting the person for smoking pot on the corner with the further purpose of robbing a 7-Eleven because he has a case of the munchies.
No, and the overwhelming majority of people who drive at .08 BAC are not substantially impaired. .08 is usually barely intoxicated.
Now you are getting to my point. 0.08 BAC *is* criminalized. So an equivalent amount of pot intoxication should be thusly criminalized (if we have criminalization at all). And unless you can establish that, you cannot thus legalize.
Planks in my party platform are lower the drinking age and raise the allowable BAC.
There is no "intent to distribute" crime in itself.
That's generally referred to as "a distinction without a difference".
I wasn't suggesting that he be arrested because he might drive later. I was saying pot should remain illegal because he might drive later and we have no quantitative measures to properly control the determination of impairment.
In a thread where we're talking about what the law should be, you know that really wasn't my question.
There's a tremendous difference. You're arresting someone because they have an illegal drug. To say that they are arrested because of whatever they might intend to do with it is wrong.
And yes, criminal possession also has an intent requirement but having the drug on your person is more than enough to fulfill probable cause.
And yes, criminal possession also has an intent requirement but having the drug on your person is more than enough to fulfill probable cause.
You are exacerbating the charge because of intent. Possession is one crime. Possession WITH INTENT is another.
There is no "intent to distribute" crime in itself.
That's generally referred to as "a distinction without a difference".
No. Possession makes a huge difference in that case.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/volume83.pdf
And here's a summary of some effects with links to the studies:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/SecondhandSmoke.htm
Maybe not "as bad" but, according to these studies, bad enough that you should avoid it. Anecdotally, I feel worse after being in a really smoky apartment/bar/whatever than I do if I just went ahead and had a cigarette, but that has more to do with conditioning than anything else.
And the ban has reduced the amount of overall smokers in NYC, which means less people smoking at home and elsewhere on the streets. It's been a net positive for the city IMO. Sometimes the conventional wisdom about an issue is just wrong, and the CW in the bar industry was that it would kill business, so no one was going to do it voluntarily. Again, speaking anecdotally, it has brought a lot of my friends who avoided bars b/c they're sensitive to smoke (mostly people who grew up in smoking homes, actually) out to the bars more often and for longer stints. Even the afterhours club I used to work at, which is as unregulated as they come, has prohibited smoking b/c of the cultural change brought about by the ban.
Correct. I think that's an important difference.
Actually I didn't think we were talking about that. We were talking about whether a detection technique was necessary for leagalization of pot.
Do you think the BAC is too low, or do you really think no DUI laws are needed? That preventative policing isn't "allowed".
If a guy has a certain quantity of pot, he is charged with possession. If a guy has the same amount neatly parcelled out, he is charged with possession with intent to distribute.
Of course you have to have possession to get the intent, but the intent is a crime. So we *do* charge people with crimes based on what "they might do". Sheesh - you all agree that we do, so why keep at it?
Correct. I think that's an important difference.
That has nothing to do with the legal requirements of intent, though. It is a total shortcut written into the law. They might as well be called "Possession" and "Possession of a Lot."
Intent to distribute isn't proven at all in the second case. It is merely assumed that anyone with that much weed intends to sell it, therefore, the charge is greater regardless of the actual intent of the possessor.
Why is this being argued, again?
I thought you said they ARRESTED people based on mere intent. This is not true.
I wasn't sure whether you had me on ignore. No question. Not this time, at least.
Who's the candidate? Barney Gumble?
Isn't your argument that intent is a reason to arrest someone? In every crime you need a guilty act. Even in a conspiracy, there is a guilty act -- the agreement itself (and most states require an overt act as well). We don't arrest people merely because they are sitting on their porch one day thinking of robbing a bank; they need to take active steps in furtherance of that.
Right. They are charging him with their perceived intentions. And I know people get arrested if they parcel the same material more seriously than if they had the same amount in bulk. It doesn't just have to be "a lot"; parcelling is a big factor, because it implies intent.
NOT AT ALL.
I will say that I have done dozens, nay hundreds, of stupid/extremely dangerous things while drunk, up to and including broken bones, getting in fights, almost getting stabbed, etc.
While smoking Marijuana the most dangerous thing I have ever done is watch Star Wars Episode III like eight times.
I am admittedly not aware of the law in different jurisdictions as to parcelling, but my answer to the "perceived intentions" is "sort of."
The intentions of the possessor aren't really what matters. The reason the law is written that way is to avoid the state having to make the more difficult proof that someone was, in fact, dealing. By making an amount over a certain threshold "possession with intent to distribute," the state can get dealers without having to prove that they were dealing. Whether someone else with an amount over the threshold gets nailed along with the dealers is irrelevant - the state can choose to lessen the charge if they so desire.
Parcelling, on the other hand, would be actual evidence of intent to distribute - IF intent had to be proved separately. Who keeps weed in neatly divided bags?
In the field that I'm in, nothing could possibly be further from the truth right now.
My company is so desperate to find competent workers that they're giving out rather incredible bonuses for successful referrals.
Monk?
Heheheheh
My company is so desperate to find competent workers that they're giving out rather incredible bonuses for successful referrals.
I'm not surprised you work in telemarketing.
NOT AT ALL.
I got that from your #336:
Well, Pops, on Page 2 DMN claimed "intent" wasn't a reason to arrest someone, and I am no lawyer, but I think he's wrong.
My company is so desperate to find competent workers that they're giving out rather incredible bonuses for successful referrals.
I don't think this speaks to the point at all- my point here is that we can't expect labor to make companies have healthy workplaces. Even the most successful unions usually achieved this through government regulation of their practice. Expecting bartenders or nurses to be the ones that get smoking banned in bars or hospitals seems to radically misunderstand the relationship between labor and management.
If I decide to stop smoking herb and posting to Primer all day to look for a job, what field are you in?
Well, you have to admit that that was a monumentally stupid thing to do.
If Joey B. is not operating this truck safely, please contact...
See you at Mass!
Does it rank above or below his Jar-Jar tattoo?
My Jar-Jar tattoo is quite tasteful, thank you.
And at least I endangered only myself by watching Hayden Christenson yell "NOOOOOO!" so many times.
And, I suppose, all of my roommates, but at the time they were supportive of the endeavor.
When, exactly, has labor lobbied to ban smoking from workplaces? This isn't exactly the same as battling machinery that chops off limbs and a failure to supply adequate eye protection kind of stuff.
Employers don't have a huge cost of replacing machinery and buying safety equipment that would make them fight against banning smoking. It is free: ban smoking from the workplace. Done.
You don't go out looking for a job dressed like that, do you?
And, I suppose, all of my roommates, but at the time they were supportive of the endeavor.
Yeah... I was.. uhh... totally baked when I did that... super high... yeah
Ray Zerba's available, as long as you don't ask him what he plans to do with the bonus money.
Ray Zerba III is enjoying his fourth season at Ballpark Foods as the new Director of Personnel concerning scheduling and human resources. He began his rise up the "corporate hot dog ladder" as a concessions cashier in 2004, then managed Stand 2 in 2005, and moved up to the Concourse Manager last season.
Ray grew up on the island of Key West, and moved to Orange Park where he lived for 18 years. He currently resides in St. Augustine and loves North Florida. He recently left a 17 year career of collections litigation to take his full-time position at Ballpark Foods. Ray spent nine years with two local collection law firms as a paralegal and eight years as a Portfolio Litigation Manager with AT&T;Universal Card Services.
Ray carries a high level of positive energy and excitement, which fosters an employee friendly-team oriented atmosphere and a common feeling among the staff, that the ballpark is a great place to work and have fun at the same time!!! In his free time Ray considers himself a pinball wizard and is often found in the Grand Slam Gameroom practicing his skills on the Star Wars machine. He has an open challenge to all who think they can beat his high score.
A word of advice Kevin. Don't hold your breath waiting for a "You're welcome."
Mostly because the pyscho liberals (not all liberals are pychos), like Vaux beliefs are as offensive as crap I toss out. The difference, is they mostly believe what they say, while I rarely do, or at least rarely do without a good amount of exageration.
I don't know.
What makes him so good?
There, that'll get us past PETCO easy...
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main