Got it, you want to kill pot users. Good to know.
Golly-gee that would be terrible were it not a straw man erected from a tendentious reading of my posts.
You want to destroy people's liberty, in the most extreme way possible, because of the mere possibility that we might lose an ounce of liberty in the future?
Are you listening to yourself?
Again, read my posts, not mtbkr's pearl-clutching.
============================
Really, folks, does no one think past the first move?
1. Legalize pot. Woo-hoo. Isn't that wonderful.
Too bad it has zero effect on the War on Drugs and the liberty-crushing policy that grows from it. So, all the WoSD abuses remain, but now we have more stoners and have to tolerate not only cigarette smoke in public, but also wacky tobacky smoke in public.
2. Disability & DiscriminationQ. Are alcoholics covered by the ADA?
A. Yes. While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) cannot find you disabled based solely on your diagnosis of chronic alcoholism. However, many people who suffer from chronic alcoholism have physical or behavioral changes that limit their ability to function in a work situation and that are caused by their chronic use of alcohol. The SSA will not treat your claim any worse because your impairment is a result of chronic alcoholism.
All in all, it is a diminution of liberty, a greater financial burden, and a less pleasant public sphere for everyone who does not smoke pot. Screw that noise. Shoot the stoners first.
[libertoid: Oh, but roo_ster, that is not the fault of pot users! That is the fault of over-intrusive gov't. First, we need to eliminate the ADA and entitlement programs...
roo_ster: Yeah, I 'll just let that sit there for a moment.
roo_ster: If your quirky little plan for liberty will result in less liberty unless it requires HUGE upheavals in gov't and society, your quirky little plan for liberty sucks. After marxist leftists, I am not sure who is more delusional: economists or libertarians?]
===========================
I'm sitting over here chuckling at some of the assumptions made about pot smokers...
I hate to tell you guys *cough cough rooster cough cough* but plenty of people who you would not immediately identify as recreational drug users smoke up without the counter culture stoner identity.
As far as hiring/firing based on impairment, I too would like to see a better way to test for actual inebriation rather than find out if someone toked up on their last weekend off.
I would also love to see roosters little world implode if everyone he knew lined up with t-shirts declaring if they smoked pot or not. I'm betting there would be a lot more than he'd ever guess (and people he actually like too 
)
I thought I'd left the junior high decades back, but here we are with folk yukking it up whilst acting as if they know something more than they really do. My wife will regale me with a tale of someone all grown up acting in a peculiar, usually petty, manner. I will remind her, "Hon, some folks just never left junior high. Oh, their bodies aged out, but their heads never left."
