It is insightful. My father has been a high school science teacher for over a decade. One day over the speaker system it's announced that latex products are banned from being used within the school because an anonymous student is fatally allergic to latex. Latex gloves are used for safety purposes in classroom experiments and labs.
And that's like peanut butter how exactly?
1) Latex isn't aromatic. It should be possible to keep the child away from the Latex without removing it from the school. 2) The gloves are used for safety and a good substitute may not exist. There are plenty of other foods than peanut butter.
Why should my child's education suffer because your child can't cope with the realities of life? It shouldn't.
There is a point at which an allergy means logistically the child has to be removed from the school. The school becoming peanut butter free is not that point.
This sort of extreme action is impractical and ineffective -- a thought people choose to dismiss in favor of an idealistic "equal opportunity" utopian dream, even for the severely disadvantaged. (And if being fatally allergic to a common material isn't severely disadvantaged, what is it?)
Either the school over-reacted or this child is genuinely too allergic to be part of the school without major changes. However banning a certain food from the school is NOT extreme or impractical.
Callous, ignorant, and selfish is better than self-righteous.
Neither the argument nor my person are self-righteous. People who won't give up something as small as having a treat at a particular physical location even when people's lives depend on it aren't fit to call themselves human beings.
If someone is that allergic, wear a damn mask. Was that so hard to think of?
Your solution simply doesn't fucking work and isn't practical. Try getting a child to reliably put a gas mask on, on pain of death.
You've obviously got no experience with anaphylactic allergies, so try doing a little homework before opening your mouth about an issue that's literally life and death.
If your daughter is so sensitive that particles of a common food product in the air could kill her, then she should die. If not, she should at least be forcibly sterilized.
I have seen the effects, and the reason I pointed out carrying an EpiPen is it's the only thing that's going to keep the child alive long enough to get to the hospital should the bad thing happen. I'm not saying to use it like candy, I'm saying if they are sensitive enough to the point that the mere smell is going to set them off, just like a person who's deathly allergic to bee stings, they need to carry emergency treatment with them at all times, and the school staff need to be trained on it.
Agreed, keep it there for emergencies. However DON'T create an unsafe place where emergencies are the norm, which is where the ban comes in.
That said, I couldn't find anything supporting a complete school wide ban on peanut butter from what I consider credible sources.
Quite frankly, you're not looking hard enough to find it.
Personally, if the child is that sensitive, you're going to have to be banning a whole lot more than just peanut butter as peanut and other reaction triggering substances are used in a crazy variety of items;
Simply banning products that contain peanut is enough and has been shown to be effective. Try a little harder and you'll find plenty of annecdotal evidence on the web. If you want controlled studies, I agree more should be done. In the meantime this is the safest, simplest, and cheapest method to keep these children from harm.
I do think re-organizing a school's budget and operation around one child's problem IS too much.
It's fortunate that no one is suggesting that, isn't it. Simply ban the peanut products the way you ban knives or guns or cyanide or other dangerous substances. If there's a genuine slip up made by a parent or child warn them. If they flout the rule suspend or expel them.
You assume the gain to society is great, when this is simply not true. If the gains were great, society would be already be doing it. The gains are only great for a very small subset of society.
What a bunch of baloney! WHO are the gains great for. There are drug companies who'll fight to discover, test and patent medicine first then close it off to the rest of society via IP law. The gains are great FOR THE COMPANY if they do so. They're much greater for society if the company isn't permitted exclusive rights to the medicine. (The usual argument that no medicine would be created because there is no incentive is simply rubbish).
It might seem mean spirited to you, but it's really just survival. If providing a service costs more than the income you receive from it, eventually you will no longer be in a position to provide that service.
By that logic we should all do our best to evade tax too.
dude, if your kid's really that sensitive that she's going to pop off from breathing in tiny particles in the air from a cough or sneeze, i hate to break it to yeah, your daughter is a goner anyways
Dude, I hate to break it to you but you have no fucking idea how allergies work or why peanut allergies are particularly bad. Peanut oil doesn't magically travel hundreds of kilometers. However bring it into the same room and the kid's going to have a problem breathing.
get her an epi pen
More ignorance. A child with such allergies will carry an epi-pen anyway in case the encounters peanut butter in an unforeseen circumstance, because otherwise they die. However it's a last resort not some magic pill they can pop. An adrenaline shot will take a lot out of you and an anaphylactic attack treated that way will require hospitilization for at least a day or two. Furthermore the adrenaline is only a temporary measure until the child can be taken to hospital where they're given other drugs to combat the allergy. The adrenaline is just to literally keep them breathing.
or homeschool her
Why don't you homeschool your child if they can't function without bringing dangerous substances into the schoolyard. Not that you'd make a good teacher based on your rant.
but quit with the idea that you can tell everyone else NOT to go about normally so YOU can
Why does his child have to go without proper schooling, or risk death just so YOUR child can go about their business normally. The impact on your child is that they eat peanut butter at home. The impact on his child is death or lack of education.
Basically grow the fuck up. No one is even asking you or your child to give up the peanut butter at all. Not that it would be such a bi g ask with lives at stake. Just don't fucking bring it to school. Same way that your child is asked not to bring dangerous weapons (knives, guns) to school regardless of weather or not your child is likely to use them in a criminal way.
Have a think about what your teaching your kid: Your right to eat peanut butter whereever you goddamn like outweights that kids right to breath or get an education. Then wonder why your kid turns into a self absorbed asshole with criminal tendancies.
Seriously, I know I'm being picky, but how is someone else's allergy my problem?
You share a common space with them, and live in a common civilized society. If all you have to do is eat one or two of your fucking tasty treats somewhere else to make someone's life threatening disability more livable, you're a callous self centered child.
is there anything short of a hazmat suit, or just staying at home, that would keep her from dieing without infringing on anyone else?
We're not even talking about banning the kid from eating peanuts. Just don't do it just before you share a common area with an allergic kid, and don't bring it into that area. It's really not so fucking hard.
Go ahead though. Teach a kid that their right to bring a snack to school outweighs another person's right to have a life. Then go and wonder why society goes to shit, crime goes up etc.
Your child should be carrying an EpiPen, and should be ok eating at their own, peanut free table. There isn't a need to ban peanut butter from the whole school
Have you actually seen what a shot of adrenaline like that does to the body?...and that's only a temporary measure till they can get to hospital, where it'll take 2 or 3 days to recover. Epi-pens are fantastic but they're not a magic bullet and they don't just fix the problem. If an adult had adrenaline once or twice a week, they'd be pushing their system to the limit, let alone a child. Your "let them eat cake" solution is unworkable. It's much simpler and more workable to ban peanut butter the way you ban cyanide. The only difference being cyanide is poisonous to everyone.
In any case we're only talking about banning it in common shared spaces, not banning sale.
Another person who clearly has no experience of this life and death problem but comments. (At least you did a little research. Unfortunately a little knowledge about a life and death situation is a dangerous thing!)
Should everyone wear a sterile suit and mask so that people with immunodeficiencies do not have to live inside a plastic bubble?
No because that wouldn't fix the problem. If you're that prone to disease you'll get it unless you stay in a cleanroom. By contrast, simply giving up a single kind of food, and only in common shared places means you can allow others to lead a normal life.
Should some of your actions be curtailed to live in a civilized society. Certainly. For example should your ability to kill people when you get angry at them be banned? Yes. Why? Because otherwise everyone starts killing each other. Does it affect everyone equally? No. The weak are more protected than the strong. Should the strong be exempt? No. Why? Because it doesn't work unless EVERYONE is subject to the same set of rules that makes society safe to live in.
I hate to sound callous, but if someone is THAT allergic to a common food and they die, perhaps it is natural selection at work?
Not only do you sound ignorant, selfish and callous, you'd be the first to cry foul if it was yourself or someone you cared about that had the allergy. Giving up a food in a common area is no big deal. They're not even talking about banning its sale, just keeping it out of public places. It's really not that hard, and it saves and improves lives.
Natural selection my left testicle. If you're so concerned with natural selection doing its work why don't you refuse all immunization and medical treatment. Go die of an infection if you cut yourself. Callous, ignorant, selfish child.
You mustn't have an anaphylactic allergy. Most people who have that level of allergy to peanuts have trouble breathing if the stuff is anywhere near them, because the peanut oil is aromatic. So problem not solved.
The problem lies with them, not everybody else. Why should I be denied peanuts because somebody else can't handle them?
Because if you're denied peanuts, they get to live. In a civilized society it shouldn't be a big deal to keep common areas safe for everyone. The fact that you're unwilling to give up a single food (or a handful of foods) to keep others from either dying or being unable to function in society makes you a self centered moron. You'd probably be the first person to piss and moan if you were the one with the allergy.
I had no idea you were talking LEO. That's insane. The closer the orbit, the more energy you have to spend keeping them there. Look at how often ISS and Hubble haveto have their orbits boosted. Sure not every day, having such a big thing orbiting so close is inviting destruction. If at some point you lose the capability to boost or a mission fails, you might as well have a sci-fi style mass driver pointed at Earth.
Sounds like a plan. An awful plan that is. Orbits can decay and miscalculations can occur. If you didn't do it just right you'd actually CREATE the disaster.
Anyway if you want to use a large orbiting rock for construction material what's wrong with the moon?
If you walk around calling women you find unattractive "ugly mutts", it may go some way towards explaining your resentment at seeing them get guys. You wouldn't have been rejected by an ugly mutt or two would you???
It amazes me what people will do to justify their own behaviour. Drugs do ruin lives. Getting involved with drugs is an unncessary risk, not just to the drug user, but to those around them, since invariably many will become addicted.
I love how the drug users have all responded with how wonderful and good drugs are for you, but none have commented on my disdain for jail as a punishment for taking drugs...but then it's on me for expecting drug users to come up with a sound argument.
And you're just trying to conflate drug use and abuse
Actually, I'm not trying to confiscate anything. I AM saying if the government does I don't have a problem with it (just with incarceration as a penalty) I have no interest in other people's stupidity until it starts affecting me.
First, most drug users aren't addicts
Drugs are addictive. Aside from a couple of "soft" drugs, you're wrong.
Second, I know plenty of coffee addicts who wouldn't.
Coffee is a mild drug, and is relatively easy to kick. Comparing coffee addition to crack cocaine addiction is asinine. Coffee is also cheap. You don't need to steal things or con people to afford a cup of coffee.
And third, there are plenty of gambling or sex addicts who would lie cheat and steal to get their kicks.
That you'd make such a patently incorrect statement suggests you have no knowledge of addiction. Addicted gamblers typically bankrupt their families. Sex addicts typically ruin theirs.
So really, it doesn't seem like you have a point here.
You do know putting your hands over your ears and shouting 'lalalala' at the top of your lungs doesn't negate the fact that your opponent in an argument has a point, don't you?
The OPs point that exogenous drugs aren't fundamentally different than the endogenous drugs we all enjoy stands....and my point was the unnecessary addition of exogenous drugs which tend to cause harm is bone headed.
Not really, it's about getting high and having a good time.
If you need drugs to have a good time, you have problems. Another fool trying to justify lighting up and destroying brain cells. While I don't believe you belong in jail, I do believe you're a self destructive idiot.
There's no such thing as a drug pusher, why would anyone need to push drugs on anyone else when there's so much demand already?
Another statement that suggests you live in an altered reality.
People do drugs because they're fun, and good for them too.
Oh yes, it's a government conspiracy to prevent us from having a good time. If you think drugs are good for you, I'm wasting my time arguing with a total moron. End of discussion.
Yeah you did screw the figures up. To function in society, almost everyone has to cross the road. In contrast, it is not necessary to take recreational drugs to function in society, and the proportion of the population that take them is low. You'd see drug deaths skyrocket if everyone was stupid enough to do recreational drugs. Furthermore crossing the road doesn't cost you a lot and doesn't turn you into someone willing to steal, betray family and friends etc. just so you can cross the road again.
Honestly, all you're doing here is trying to justify what I'm guessing is your own self-destructive habit. You're doing a very bad job at it too. Your arguments are weak. Perhaps too many drugs?
try telling that to a fat person with cancer and diabetes etc...
Okay lets say I concede the point that sometimes natural chemicals go crazy and end up hurting you. How exactly does that justify putting nasty unnatural ones that always screw you up into your body, just to get a high???
That's a little bit like trying to justify shooting yourself, because hey there are muggers out there that might try to do you harm...except of course that almost no one gets pleasure shooting themselves....or were you just trolling?
You might want to look at your management style there...
- You say you're willing to have someone fired on the spot if they behave badly. I would at least hope you'd find out if this was unusual or out of character behaviour brought about by an exceptional condition.
- You proudly say IT people are disposable and are there to do shit work ("hand holder and wet nurse"). If you treat people with a lack of respect, they'll have zero loyalty and take every opportunity to get away with whatever they can. It's just as easy to change your tone a little ("Don't forget we're here to support the business and make their job easier") so that you're less abrasive. Instead you clearly and proudly believe your staff are beneath you and beneath the end user. These are the people you want to be able to count on when the shit hits the fan! You don't want them resenting you.
- I agree that calling users idiots is unproductive and runs counter to your goals, but so is telling people to "grow up".
In short stop being an abrasive ass and take a little of your own advice in treating people with respect and giving as well as taking.
I agree with everything you said except calling the police if physically threatened. By all means do this if you think they'll follow through, but if not keep it within the company to begin with or YOU will be seen as the trouble maker. You can always bring it to the attention of the authorities later and it'll be difficult for HR to deny that you showed them the letter. Also get your immediate manager involved.
Slashdot Mirror
It is insightful. My father has been a high school science teacher for over a decade. One day over the speaker system it's announced that latex products are banned from being used within the school because an anonymous student is fatally allergic to latex. Latex gloves are used for safety purposes in classroom experiments and labs.
And that's like peanut butter how exactly?
1) Latex isn't aromatic. It should be possible to keep the child away from the Latex without removing it from the school.
2) The gloves are used for safety and a good substitute may not exist. There are plenty of other foods than peanut butter.
Why should my child's education suffer because your child can't cope with the realities of life? It shouldn't.
There is a point at which an allergy means logistically the child has to be removed from the school. The school becoming peanut butter free is not that point.
This sort of extreme action is impractical and ineffective -- a thought people choose to dismiss in favor of an idealistic "equal opportunity" utopian dream, even for the severely disadvantaged. (And if being fatally allergic to a common material isn't severely disadvantaged, what is it?)
Either the school over-reacted or this child is genuinely too allergic to be part of the school without major changes. However banning a certain food from the school is NOT extreme or impractical.
Callous, ignorant, and selfish is better than self-righteous.
Neither the argument nor my person are self-righteous. People who won't give up something as small as having a treat at a particular physical location even when people's lives depend on it aren't fit to call themselves human beings.
If someone is that allergic, wear a damn mask. Was that so hard to think of?
Your solution simply doesn't fucking work and isn't practical. Try getting a child to reliably put a gas mask on, on pain of death.
You've obviously got no experience with anaphylactic allergies, so try doing a little homework before opening your mouth about an issue that's literally life and death.
It is absolutely pitiful and disgusting that this gets modded up as insightful on slashdot. Shame on the fucking lot of you.
If your daughter is so sensitive that particles of a common food product in the air could kill her, then she should die. If not, she should at least be forcibly sterilized.
Ah ze master race. Hitler, is that you?
I have seen the effects, and the reason I pointed out carrying an EpiPen is it's the only thing that's going to keep the child alive long enough to get to the hospital should the bad thing happen. I'm not saying to use it like candy, I'm saying if they are sensitive enough to the point that the mere smell is going to set them off, just like a person who's deathly allergic to bee stings, they need to carry emergency treatment with them at all times, and the school staff need to be trained on it.
Agreed, keep it there for emergencies. However DON'T create an unsafe place where emergencies are the norm, which is where the ban comes in.
That said, I couldn't find anything supporting a complete school wide ban on peanut butter from what I consider credible sources.
Quite frankly, you're not looking hard enough to find it.
Personally, if the child is that sensitive, you're going to have to be banning a whole lot more than just peanut butter as peanut and other reaction triggering substances are used in a crazy variety of items;
Simply banning products that contain peanut is enough and has been shown to be effective. Try a little harder and you'll find plenty of annecdotal evidence on the web. If you want controlled studies, I agree more should be done. In the meantime this is the safest, simplest, and cheapest method to keep these children from harm.
I do think re-organizing a school's budget and operation around one child's problem IS too much.
It's fortunate that no one is suggesting that, isn't it. Simply ban the peanut products the way you ban knives or guns or cyanide or other dangerous substances. If there's a genuine slip up made by a parent or child warn them. If they flout the rule suspend or expel them.
You assume the gain to society is great, when this is simply not true. If the gains were great, society would be already be doing it. The gains are only great for a very small subset of society.
What a bunch of baloney! WHO are the gains great for. There are drug companies who'll fight to discover, test and patent medicine first then close it off to the rest of society via IP law. The gains are great FOR THE COMPANY if they do so. They're much greater for society if the company isn't permitted exclusive rights to the medicine. (The usual argument that no medicine would be created because there is no incentive is simply rubbish).
It might seem mean spirited to you, but it's really just survival. If providing a service costs more than the income you receive from it, eventually you will no longer be in a position to provide that service.
By that logic we should all do our best to evade tax too.
dude, if your kid's really that sensitive that she's going to pop off from breathing in tiny particles in the air from a cough or sneeze, i hate to break it to yeah, your daughter is a goner anyways
Dude, I hate to break it to you but you have no fucking idea how allergies work or why peanut allergies are particularly bad. Peanut oil doesn't magically travel hundreds of kilometers. However bring it into the same room and the kid's going to have a problem breathing.
get her an epi pen
More ignorance. A child with such allergies will carry an epi-pen anyway in case the encounters peanut butter in an unforeseen circumstance, because otherwise they die. However it's a last resort not some magic pill they can pop. An adrenaline shot will take a lot out of you and an anaphylactic attack treated that way will require hospitilization for at least a day or two. Furthermore the adrenaline is only a temporary measure until the child can be taken to hospital where they're given other drugs to combat the allergy. The adrenaline is just to literally keep them breathing.
or homeschool her
Why don't you homeschool your child if they can't function without bringing dangerous substances into the schoolyard. Not that you'd make a good teacher based on your rant.
but quit with the idea that you can tell everyone else NOT to go about normally so YOU can
Why does his child have to go without proper schooling, or risk death just so YOUR child can go about their business normally. The impact on your child is that they eat peanut butter at home. The impact on his child is death or lack of education.
Basically grow the fuck up. No one is even asking you or your child to give up the peanut butter at all. Not that it would be such a bi g ask with lives at stake. Just don't fucking bring it to school. Same way that your child is asked not to bring dangerous weapons (knives, guns) to school regardless of weather or not your child is likely to use them in a criminal way.
Have a think about what your teaching your kid: Your right to eat peanut butter whereever you goddamn like outweights that kids right to breath or get an education. Then wonder why your kid turns into a self absorbed asshole with criminal tendancies.
Seriously, I know I'm being picky, but how is someone else's allergy my problem?
You share a common space with them, and live in a common civilized society. If all you have to do is eat one or two of your fucking tasty treats somewhere else to make someone's life threatening disability more livable, you're a callous self centered child.
is there anything short of a hazmat suit, or just staying at home, that would keep her from dieing without infringing on anyone else?
We're not even talking about banning the kid from eating peanuts. Just don't do it just before you share a common area with an allergic kid, and don't bring it into that area. It's really not so fucking hard.
Go ahead though. Teach a kid that their right to bring a snack to school outweighs another person's right to have a life. Then go and wonder why society goes to shit, crime goes up etc.
Your child should be carrying an EpiPen, and should be ok eating at their own, peanut free table. There isn't a need to ban peanut butter from the whole school
Have you actually seen what a shot of adrenaline like that does to the body?...and that's only a temporary measure till they can get to hospital, where it'll take 2 or 3 days to recover. Epi-pens are fantastic but they're not a magic bullet and they don't just fix the problem. If an adult had adrenaline once or twice a week, they'd be pushing their system to the limit, let alone a child. Your "let them eat cake" solution is unworkable. It's much simpler and more workable to ban peanut butter the way you ban cyanide. The only difference being cyanide is poisonous to everyone.
In any case we're only talking about banning it in common shared spaces, not banning sale.
Another person who clearly has no experience of this life and death problem but comments. (At least you did a little research. Unfortunately a little knowledge about a life and death situation is a dangerous thing!)
Should everyone wear a sterile suit and mask so that people with immunodeficiencies do not have to live inside a plastic bubble?
No because that wouldn't fix the problem. If you're that prone to disease you'll get it unless you stay in a cleanroom. By contrast, simply giving up a single kind of food, and only in common shared places means you can allow others to lead a normal life.
Should some of your actions be curtailed to live in a civilized society. Certainly. For example should your ability to kill people when you get angry at them be banned? Yes. Why? Because otherwise everyone starts killing each other. Does it affect everyone equally? No. The weak are more protected than the strong. Should the strong be exempt? No. Why? Because it doesn't work unless EVERYONE is subject to the same set of rules that makes society safe to live in.
I hate to sound callous, but if someone is THAT allergic to a common food and they die, perhaps it is natural selection at work?
Not only do you sound ignorant, selfish and callous, you'd be the first to cry foul if it was yourself or someone you cared about that had the allergy. Giving up a food in a common area is no big deal. They're not even talking about banning its sale, just keeping it out of public places. It's really not that hard, and it saves and improves lives.
Natural selection my left testicle. If you're so concerned with natural selection doing its work why don't you refuse all immunization and medical treatment. Go die of an infection if you cut yourself. Callous, ignorant, selfish child.
You mustn't have an anaphylactic allergy. Most people who have that level of allergy to peanuts have trouble breathing if the stuff is anywhere near them, because the peanut oil is aromatic. So problem not solved.
The problem lies with them, not everybody else. Why should I be denied peanuts because somebody else can't handle them?
Because if you're denied peanuts, they get to live. In a civilized society it shouldn't be a big deal to keep common areas safe for everyone. The fact that you're unwilling to give up a single food (or a handful of foods) to keep others from either dying or being unable to function in society makes you a self centered moron. You'd probably be the first person to piss and moan if you were the one with the allergy.
I had no idea you were talking LEO. That's insane. The closer the orbit, the more energy you have to spend keeping them there. Look at how often ISS and Hubble haveto have their orbits boosted. Sure not every day, having such a big thing orbiting so close is inviting destruction. If at some point you lose the capability to boost or a mission fails, you might as well have a sci-fi style mass driver pointed at Earth.
Sounds like a plan. An awful plan that is. Orbits can decay and miscalculations can occur. If you didn't do it just right you'd actually CREATE the disaster.
Anyway if you want to use a large orbiting rock for construction material what's wrong with the moon?
If you walk around calling women you find unattractive "ugly mutts", it may go some way towards explaining your resentment at seeing them get guys. You wouldn't have been rejected by an ugly mutt or two would you???
Viiisss-ta suuux. Me go baack XP. Where did you want be Yes-teeerrrrr-day.
It amazes me what people will do to justify their own behaviour. Drugs do ruin lives. Getting involved with drugs is an unncessary risk, not just to the drug user, but to those around them, since invariably many will become addicted.
I love how the drug users have all responded with how wonderful and good drugs are for you, but none have commented on my disdain for jail as a punishment for taking drugs...but then it's on me for expecting drug users to come up with a sound argument.
And you're just trying to conflate drug use and abuse
...and my point was the unnecessary addition of exogenous drugs which tend to cause harm is bone headed.
Actually, I'm not trying to confiscate anything. I AM saying if the government does I don't have a problem with it (just with incarceration as a penalty) I have no interest in other people's stupidity until it starts affecting me.
First, most drug users aren't addicts
Drugs are addictive. Aside from a couple of "soft" drugs, you're wrong.
Second, I know plenty of coffee addicts who wouldn't.
Coffee is a mild drug, and is relatively easy to kick. Comparing coffee addition to crack cocaine addiction is asinine. Coffee is also cheap. You don't need to steal things or con people to afford a cup of coffee.
And third, there are plenty of gambling or sex addicts who would lie cheat and steal to get their kicks.
That you'd make such a patently incorrect statement suggests you have no knowledge of addiction. Addicted gamblers typically bankrupt their families. Sex addicts typically ruin theirs.
So really, it doesn't seem like you have a point here.
You do know putting your hands over your ears and shouting 'lalalala' at the top of your lungs doesn't negate the fact that your opponent in an argument has a point, don't you?
The OPs point that exogenous drugs aren't fundamentally different than the endogenous drugs we all enjoy stands.
Not really, it's about getting high and having a good time.
If you need drugs to have a good time, you have problems. Another fool trying to justify lighting up and destroying brain cells. While I don't believe you belong in jail, I do believe you're a self destructive idiot.
There's no such thing as a drug pusher, why would anyone need to push drugs on anyone else when there's so much demand already?
Another statement that suggests you live in an altered reality.
People do drugs because they're fun, and good for them too.
Oh yes, it's a government conspiracy to prevent us from having a good time. If you think drugs are good for you, I'm wasting my time arguing with a total moron. End of discussion.
The public does have a say. Stop voting jackasses to power.
Yeah, that'll work.
"Stop voting for jackasses....by the way here is the list of jackasses you can choose from".
Yeah you did screw the figures up. To function in society, almost everyone has to cross the road. In contrast, it is not necessary to take recreational drugs to function in society, and the proportion of the population that take them is low. You'd see drug deaths skyrocket if everyone was stupid enough to do recreational drugs. Furthermore crossing the road doesn't cost you a lot and doesn't turn you into someone willing to steal, betray family and friends etc. just so you can cross the road again.
Honestly, all you're doing here is trying to justify what I'm guessing is your own self-destructive habit. You're doing a very bad job at it too. Your arguments are weak. Perhaps too many drugs?
try telling that to a fat person with cancer and diabetes etc...
...or were you just trolling?
Okay lets say I concede the point that sometimes natural chemicals go crazy and end up hurting you. How exactly does that justify putting nasty unnatural ones that always screw you up into your body, just to get a high???
That's a little bit like trying to justify shooting yourself, because hey there are muggers out there that might try to do you harm...except of course that almost no one gets pleasure shooting themselves.
You might want to look at your management style there...
- You say you're willing to have someone fired on the spot if they behave badly. I would at least hope you'd find out if this was unusual or out of character behaviour brought about by an exceptional condition.
- You proudly say IT people are disposable and are there to do shit work ("hand holder and wet nurse"). If you treat people with a lack of respect, they'll have zero loyalty and take every opportunity to get away with whatever they can. It's just as easy to change your tone a little ("Don't forget we're here to support the business and make their job easier") so that you're less abrasive. Instead you clearly and proudly believe your staff are beneath you and beneath the end user. These are the people you want to be able to count on when the shit hits the fan! You don't want them resenting you.
- I agree that calling users idiots is unproductive and runs counter to your goals, but so is telling people to "grow up".
In short stop being an abrasive ass and take a little of your own advice in treating people with respect and giving as well as taking.
I agree with everything you said except calling the police if physically threatened. By all means do this if you think they'll follow through, but if not keep it within the company to begin with or YOU will be seen as the trouble maker. You can always bring it to the attention of the authorities later and it'll be difficult for HR to deny that you showed them the letter. Also get your immediate manager involved.