Libertarians say you should be “free” to smoke marijuana…?

You have a very good point. @Genital Warrior precisely articulates the problem that you are talking about in your question. He says he would "be friends with a pot smoker, but not hire one", even when that person's pot smoking did not interfere with their work.

This stubborn and irrational refusal to hire anyone that participates in a certain hobby during their down time, is exactly the "random personal inclination" you are talking about.

Personally when it comes to freedom, I have a lot more of a practical mindset. People who can legally smoke marijuana, but not do so without getting fired, are "free" only by a technical and narrow conception of that word. What value does "freedom" really have, if you cannot exercise that freedom without sacrificing your means of living?

Nobody is really "independent". We are all codependent on one another and society, but if we have to sacrifice that relationship to exercise our freedom, then I don't really see the point. I don't think it's fair that some people should essentially be "boycotted" by society - while others get to participate and benefit from mutual economic relationships - for doing things that don't even affect the quality of input that they provide in their trade-off. To me this seems counter-intuitive to any realistic notion of freedom. It's freedom by technicality only, in theory but not practice.

Self-described Libertarians and the like are all about technicalities. "Technically" the government isn't stopping you from smoking pot once it's legalized, but what difference does it make if your employer doesn't allow it? Your "employer" has essentially become a private government over you.

I'm pretty skeptical of the consistency of people who say they support an employers' right to drug test because of the "free market." I think these people would quickly toss their principles out the door if employers nationwide began to boycott a behavior that they themselves actually wished to participate in. If employers unanimously began testing for and firing employees who used alcohol or tobacco, for instance, there would be an outrage among people who formerly had no problem with employers testing for marijuana.

Awhile back, CVS Pharmacies were trying to test the BMI of their workers to determine whether or not to add an "obesity deduction" from their paycheck to pay for healthcare expenses. There was a large public OUTRAGE over this.

Where were these people who defend employers' rights to drug test when this happened, and why weren't they defending CVS?

EDIT: I really don't understand the argument that @Dreaded Rear Animal is trying to make. Nobody is making the case for being stoned on the job. The fact is that you can test positive for marijuana up to several months since the last time you consumed it, depending on the type of test. Surely somebody who used marijuana a month ago is still not under the influence, are they? Then why would this have any effect on their job performance? This is exactly what the question asker is talking about when he/she mentions "random personal inclination" - it doesn't have anything to do with that worker's qualifications or job performance.

I strongly agree with most of what you're saying.

Here's what it boils down to: libertarians think the Federal government is the biggest threat to our individual liberty. They think that if you get rid of the Federal government, people will have more personal freedoms.

But I think that's flatly contradicted by history. The Federal government is usually the biggest *protector* of our individual liberty. It's the "free society" that decided that you could be kept out of a school or hotel because of the color of your skin; it's the Federal government that said, no, people deserve those liberties.

It's the "free market" that decided that you could essentially be a slave to the company store, being paid wages that only allowed you to afford to pay your rent at the company barracks and buy your food from the company. It's the Federal government that said, no, you can't abuse your workers that way.

The Federal government makes sure that women have reproductive rights; it makes sure that the handicapped have the right to get into buildings; it makes sure that the poor have a fundamental right to basic food and safety.

Libertarians may not quite think of it this way, but what they want is to take all those rights away.

There's nonetheless a variety of "Reefer madness" available in the market. At the moment the DARE application does a nice job of convincing kids that pot will kill you, or on the very least flip you into a lazy and unproductive citizen. I'm consistently amazed at the humans who believe all this bad hype concerning the drug without needing any actual expertise or competencies. It's just like our government trying to persuade us of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify a conflict. It can be the struggle on medications, as an alternative. I grew up with the normal reefer insanity crusade in full force, but I used to be also the sort of person to look at the different facet, and what I saw was once quite a lot of folks smoking weed who didn't appear to have any of the disorders the propaganda would have had you suppose. It used to be thus that I made up our minds to try it and notice for myself. I do not forget the push of anticipation and excitement the primary time - the fun of doing some thing so taboo - and the disappointment that nothing occurred!! Persistance paid off the third try to i have been a smoker ever seeing that. What I see as the elemental concern of such propaganda about marijuana is that if you experiment and find out for your self that pot just isn't going to make you do all these terrible matters, then you may also consider perhaps it is the identical for crack, or crank, or even heroin. If what my government tells me about pot shouldn't be proper - what else are they mendacity about? I believeTHIS is the most important cause pot is considered a "gateway drug." finding out the lies you could have been told results in a notion that nothing else you might have heard about medicinal drugs is true. Unfortunately, when it comes to more difficult medications, in reality often worse than the propaganda. That said, smoking pot for the primary time will not kill you or damage you in anyway. It won't even get you excessive except you will have tried it a couple or 3 times. Should you've by no means smoked, it's going to even be elaborate so that you can inhale sufficient the first few instances without coughing. There generally is a little bit of a learning curve to getting stoned! If you do get high, one in every of two matters will happen. You can either adore it, or no longer. If you adore it, you'll be tempted to do it again. No longer on the grounds that it is addicting, but readily due to the fact that you adore it. In utilising any drug, or alcohol for that matter, there is a unique quantity of self control required. Knowing when it can be proper to make use of or not use a drug is part of keeping yourself risk-free. Smoking and riding is not an suitable use. Smoking earlier than category can also be inappropriate. The truth that it's unlawful adds one other dimension to making use of. If you are stupid about it, you are going to get caught. Getting caught is not cool at all. It can be harder to get away with it now that drug puppies in faculties and random pee exams on the job are the pursuits. It sounds like you've gotten given various inspiration to making your determination, and have even talked to your mothers and fathers about it. For those who do make a decision to take a look at it, stay riskless about it. Use your common experience and find and know your individual limits. It's viable to be a responsible stoner, just as it is possible to drink responsibly. Good luck - and - btw - go for the widow - leave the schwag by myself!

I am not a libertarian and disagree with them on many issues, but I think I can give you their answer.

The difference is your employer is not the government. Libertarianism is about limited government and government control. The government isn't asking you if you smoke or asking you to take a urine test your employer has the freedom to ask for that and you have the freedom to refuse and find another job. The libertarian ideal is that both of those decisions were made without government interference.

I used to work for a nuclear power plant and there was no drinking at lunch. They had every right to test your breath when you returned after leaving the premises.

Drinking is legal, is it not?

I really don't care if they legalize weed. I also don't care if companies screen for it. You can bleat on and on about its effects on society, but, when the rubber hits the road, it does effect comprehension. Smoking a joint before work is the same as having a strong drink; it affects the work of the individual.

After work or on the weekend, light up. I don't want to work next to a person who is under the influence of anything. If you want to be a full-time stoner, go work in a used book store.

I'm more left wing and believe in some regulation in business. Is an employer found out his/her employee was committing crime while drunk he/she could fire the employee, right? It's the same with Marijuana, they shouldn't be able to be fired for just smoking it, but doing crime while baked deserves a termination.

I'm a moderate libertarian. Here's the logic: we think smoking pot is a bad decision. That said, people should have the right to make bad decisions. I'll be friends with a pot smoker, but I wouldn't hire one.

in my day you smoked grass ate a bunch of apples then took some vitamin A and flushed everything out our system, but I'm not a libertarian though...

Since when has any laws stopped the pot heads before.

You should be free to make your own choices. You should be free to smoke marijuana, but you should not be free from the consequences. Smoke, but get fired. Whatever. You make that choice. If you don't want to get fired, don't smoke, even though it's legal. Seems pretty simple to me.