4 ms·

Maybe you can phrase your hyperbole a bit better when it comes to smoking around children. I do not think it is an insurmountable task for a legal adult take t

Maybe you can phrase your hyperbole a bit better when it comes to smoking around children. I do not think it is an insurmountable task for a legal adult take their recreational drugs at home. Maybe legal adults can take responsibility of their future, rather than risking it on breaking rules that are pretty explicit, so much so that in any other workplace or public area that prohibits smoking incurs fines at the least, and jail time for repeat offenders.

donatj 3y ago
Did you attend a modern American school, with metal detectors, transparent backpacks and zero tolerance policies? It's really not hyperbole. It's an apt comparison.
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  > Did you attend a modern American school, with metal detectors, transparent backpacks and zero tolerance policies? Not all those qualities, but we did have metal detectors. > It's really not hyperbole. It's an apt comparison. I guess my standards are lower compared to you, I associate prison with complete lack of freedom where you cannot leave at the end of the day, most other things are representations of that. School was generally fine, and even quite fun some days for myself.
handoflixue 3y ago
I think it's perfectly reasonable to complain about unequal enforcement. My workplace has a "smoking area" dedicated to drug use, and allows "smoke breaks" for the sole purpose of consuming said drugs. We have places called "bars" that exist for the sole purpose of taking drugs in public. Are we actually giving these students equal opportunities to consume it legally, or are we saying "you're a prisoner for 8 hours, and we're going to abuse that authority to deny you any access to your perfectly legal recreational activities during that period"? If we're going to crack down and say kids should go 8 hours without drugs, shouldn't we be OK enforcing that on the adults in the workplace, too? Why are we holding these students to a higher standard? Why are we spending thousands of dollars on enforcing the rules for students, and nothing on the rest of society?
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  > My workplace has a "smoking area" dedicated to drug use, and allows "smoke breaks" for the sole purpose of consuming said drugs. We have places called "bars" that exist for the sole purpose of taking drugs in public. My workplace does not, bans all drug use. All buildings and employee locations are smoke free zones, and if they catch you, actually does enforce it, leading up to termination if not outright upon discovery. See all of big tech' campus rules as the most relevant example, then further to quite literally more places than just "bars" where people also maintain an occupation. > Are we actually giving these students equal opportunities to consume it legally, or are we saying "you're a prisoner for 8 hours, and we're going to abuse that authority to deny you any access to your perfectly legal recreational activities during that period"? Legal adults can remove themselves from school by dropping out, an option they have had since the very second they turned 18. Until then, they are either the responsibility of a dedicated guardian, or the institution. Meaning parents or the school, they are not their own person. School is also, not a prison, so your hyperbole stops as soon as it starts. > If we're going to crack down and say kids should go 8 hours without drugs, shouldn't we be OK enforcing that on the adults in the workplace, too? See above. 8 hours truly is not long, I would bet a fair amount of legal adults do reach that length of time without touching drugs every single day, even the ones that do drugs recreationally. > Why are we holding these students to a higher standard? Why are we spending thousands of dollars on enforcing the rules for students, and nothing on the rest of society? See above. I don't think legal adults are as clueless as you make them out to be. > I think it's perfectly reasonable to complain about unequal enforcement. No idea what this means.
  - LordDragonfang 3y ago
    >I would bet a fair amount of legal adults do reach that length of time without touching drugs every single day Some amount, yes, but considering we, as a profession, are so addicted to caffeine that 2/5 of the most popular languages are named after it, and office coffee machines are considered table stakes, I'm not even sure you can confidently call that even a majority.

donatj 3y ago

Did you attend a modern American school, with metal detectors, transparent backpacks and zero tolerance policies? It's really not hyperbole. It's an apt comparison.

latency-guy2 3y ago
> Did you attend a modern American school, with metal detectors, transparent backpacks and zero tolerance policies? Not all those qualities, but we did have metal detectors. > It's really not hyperbole. It's an apt comparison. I guess my standards are lower compared to you, I associate prison with complete lack of freedom where you cannot leave at the end of the day, most other things are representations of that. School was generally fine, and even quite fun some days for myself.

handoflixue 3y ago

I think it's perfectly reasonable to complain about unequal enforcement. My workplace has a "smoking area" dedicated to drug use, and allows "smoke breaks" for the sole purpose of consuming said drugs. We have places called "bars" that exist for the sole purpose of taking drugs in public. Are we actually giving these students equal opportunities to consume it legally, or are we saying "you're a prisoner for 8 hours, and we're going to abuse that authority to deny you any access to your perfectly legal recreational activities during that period"? If we're going to crack down and say kids should go 8 hours without drugs, shouldn't we be OK enforcing that on the adults in the workplace, too? Why are we holding these students to a higher standard? Why are we spending thousands of dollars on enforcing the rules for students, and nothing on the rest of society?

latency-guy2 3y ago
> My workplace has a "smoking area" dedicated to drug use, and allows "smoke breaks" for the sole purpose of consuming said drugs. We have places called "bars" that exist for the sole purpose of taking drugs in public. My workplace does not, bans all drug use. All buildings and employee locations are smoke free zones, and if they catch you, actually does enforce it, leading up to termination if not outright upon discovery. See all of big tech' campus rules as the most relevant example, then further to quite literally more places than just "bars" where people also maintain an occupation. > Are we actually giving these students equal opportunities to consume it legally, or are we saying "you're a prisoner for 8 hours, and we're going to abuse that authority to deny you any access to your perfectly legal recreational activities during that period"? Legal adults can remove themselves from school by dropping out, an option they have had since the very second they turned 18. Until then, they are either the responsibility of a dedicated guardian, or the institution. Meaning parents or the school, they are not their own person. School is also, not a prison, so your hyperbole stops as soon as it starts. > If we're going to crack down and say kids should go 8 hours without drugs, shouldn't we be OK enforcing that on the adults in the workplace, too? See above. 8 hours truly is not long, I would bet a fair amount of legal adults do reach that length of time without touching drugs every single day, even the ones that do drugs recreationally. > Why are we holding these students to a higher standard? Why are we spending thousands of dollars on enforcing the rules for students, and nothing on the rest of society? See above. I don't think legal adults are as clueless as you make them out to be. > I think it's perfectly reasonable to complain about unequal enforcement. No idea what this means.
- LordDragonfang 3y ago
  >I would bet a fair amount of legal adults do reach that length of time without touching drugs every single day Some amount, yes, but considering we, as a profession, are so addicted to caffeine that 2/5 of the most popular languages are named after it, and office coffee machines are considered table stakes, I'm not even sure you can confidently call that even a majority.