Colorado businessman blames 'stoned' workers for move to SC

Your response and makes your agenda quite transparent?

Have good day!

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Dopers who cannot perform their jobs yet think everything is fine. They will never admit they are worthless under the influence, but this businessman says it was a main factor in relocating.

Wonder how widespread this is in their State? Everybody showing up stoned and expecting a paycheck. Hey guess what, alcohol is legal too but you cannot show up for work drunk all the time and expect to have a job.

Now the guy says he is moving, he will not retract what he has said but he says he didn't want all of the publicity his comments from a radio show made. He is leaving so why would he want publicity there, this seems legit.

I couldn't tell you how many this is a problem for. What I can tell you is that it's actually a benefit to some industries. Colorado has quite a software industry and being under the influence while coding and planning software has been shown to be quite beneficial.

It's so beneficial that some large companies in California have dispensaries right in their parking lot.

I wonder how much of what this man said is true vs how much is what he believes to be true. People don't give up their prejudices easily.

You are comparing apples to oranges, this man's business was hand eye coordination manipulating materials while expressing artistic ability and he had to fire 20 out of 25 artists. Far different than being zoned out typing on a keyboard.

originally posted by: seeker1963
Your response and makes your agenda quite transparent?

Have good day!

That was quite incoherent.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Do you always take one side of the story as the end all fact of the matter?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Do you always take one side of the story as the end all fact of the matter?

Do you always dismiss facts because they don't support your theories?

How did he fare before pot was legal?

Did all of the artists in the area all of a sudden become pot heads?

Or if they had been smoking did they think that it was all of a sudden ok to show up to work high?

One man's story and no corroborating evidence isn't very convincing.

What about other industries or stores, surely a place like walmart would have had to lay off hundreds due to the increase in high workers, or is that industry(retail) somehow immune.

Pretty high BS factor here.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Do you always take one side of the story as the end all fact of the matter?

Do you always dismiss facts because they don't support your theories?

To be fair, the only "facts" in this story are one mans verbal comments with NOTHING to back it up. No copies of letters of termination or other labor related material.

NOTHING.

I don't think it's unreasonable to wait for actual proof before getting too wrapped up in this.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
I wonder if this guy picked up and moved based on his beliefs(against pot legalization) and is now taking the opportunity to blame it in a sad attempt at vilifying it.

Other than that, I don't know, News flash: Artists smoke pot.

News flash: Artists might smoke pot, but how often do they do the actual work under the influence and when they do, how often do they revise what they did under the influence later on?

I remember a show where they took in actual users, let them use and then put them under a series of real world tests to see what influence the drugs had. What this guy said about the dope smokers' work under the influence matched with what they saw. The pot smoker could assemble the shelf, but it was a slow effort, and he did it sort of half-@ssed and when it was done, while the shelf was functional, it was only barely functional because they guy hadn't followed the instructions and had left out quite a few of the parts.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
wait so he's saying that the THC interfered with the artists creativity? This business owner is a abject moron.

No, he's saying it interfered with their ability to realize when they had done a thorough job.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
How did he fare before pot was legal?

Did all of the artists in the area all of a sudden become pot heads?

Or if they had been smoking did they think that it was all of a sudden ok to show up to work high?

One man's story and no corroborating evidence isn't very convincing.

What about other industries or stores, surely a place like walmart would have had to lay off hundreds due to the increase in high workers, or is that industry(retail) somehow immune.

Pretty high BS factor here.

Especially since the Op has resorted to insulting anyone questioning the story?

Yea, I would say pretty high BS factor along with someone who just hates people who smoke weed?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
wait so he's saying that the THC interfered with the artists creativity? This business owner is a abject moron.

He states as fact, 20 out of 25 artists were ejected for their lack of skill while stoned. He had an established company with a set of standards so he could compare the before and after results of when everybody thought it was ok to go work stoned because Colorado passed a law.

Right because cops can barely tell if and when someone is stoned, yet he knew these sculptors were stoned at work everytime. The eyes were probably a give away huh, I hear Visine doesn't distribute to Denver anymore because no one cares....

You would believe this idiot.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
a reply to: rockintitz

I agree, I don't buy into the concept that legalization will lead to NEW smokers the very next day.

These people were smoking, probably for years(decades), they now just happen to enjoy it legally.

And they decided to get sloppy about it. Since it's now legal, they likely felt they didn't have to take as many steps to hide it. Oops! In they come high.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Chances are they were getting stoned long before it went legal. As far as I know, this business is the first of his kind but then again I don't follow such things. If he actually ran a tight ship he could have nip this in the bud, drug tests and corrective action.

Or he can spend money and move. Chances are he probably had other ulterior motives but blames the pot.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
How did he fare before pot was legal?

Did all of the artists in the area all of a sudden become pot heads?

Or if they had been smoking did they think that it was all of a sudden ok to show up to work high?

One man's story and no corroborating evidence isn't very convincing.

What about other industries or stores, surely a place like walmart would have had to lay off hundreds due to the increase in high workers, or is that industry(retail) somehow immune.

Pretty high BS factor here.

Are you really comparing the non skilled average wallmart employee to a highly skilled artist position? As long as a Walmart employee doesn't cause a lawsuit they are pretty safe in their jobs and if they do come in high causing problems there are plenty of workers to replace them with, Walmart will not go out of business or relocate.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

A man's word is not fact, please elaborate what facts are present here.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Is that not a cornerstone of freedom?

The freedom to make dumb choices? The freedom to sack people for those dumb choices.

And the freedom to move your buisness?

Absolutely.
The dopers made dumb decisions to jeopardize their source of income by being under the influence while working.
The owner finally had enough having to fire so many artists and freely chose to move. He must have stayed and gave it a chance because it doesn't state he fired them all at once but made it sound like over a period of time. This was a setback to his business over time.

Im not a MJ user.

But I support MJ legislation.

But I also support the right of businesses to have a zero drug and Alcohol policy.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: MisterSpock
a reply to: rockintitz

I agree, I don't buy into the concept that legalization will lead to NEW smokers the very next day.

These people were smoking, probably for years(decades), they now just happen to enjoy it legally.

And they decided to get sloppy about it. Since it's now legal, they likely felt they didn't have to take as many steps to hide it. Oops! In they come high.

Responsible(key word) recreational smokers are just like responsible drinkers. If someone knows not to show up impaired in order to keep their job they are going to do that(show up unimpaired) whether or not it's legal.

I just don't see how someone who has been smoking(presumably some of his employees) would grasp this concept and respect it, but then throw it out the window once it's legal. They would have known they were going to lose their jobs, just as they would if they showed up stoned when it was illegal, or if they are a drinker and showed up drunk.

Frankly though, that's a lot of thought being put into this situation which is most likely not how the actual events played out.

a reply to: ketsuko

So a small sample size lets us use that for everyone?

Was the task something these people did for a living or just a random task they were told to do?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TinfoilTP
Meh I think he should show examples if he wants to say it was a fact that the skill went down.

He can have his rules or standards and enforce them, but to say their personal skill was down would be up to more then just him.

ETA: As I said before, I know he doesn't have to show the work, but just saying that it could be up for interpretation if their skill decreased outside of just his word.

To play the devil's advocate...

originally posted by: MisterSpock
How did he fare before pot was legal?

Did all of the artists in the area all of a sudden become pot heads?

Or if they had been smoking did they think that it was all of a sudden ok to show up to work high?

Although I do agree with the BS factor, I don't doubt for a second that incident rates, of employees arriving impaired, are up.

I ran a project in a country where alcohol was illegal. Guess how many people showed up drunk? None. I ran a project that was extremely similar in my home province. Alcohol is legal, and guess how many people showed up drunk? At least one per day out of 30 persons.

It is almost as if there is a given number of people that will just push to the absolute limit. It's not that they intend to come into work drunk, it's that they push their previous night's partying to the limit, and don't give their bodies enough recoup time before the next work day starts. Alcohol, marijuana, doesn't matter...as long as it is legal for the night before, they will push it.