Reply #46: your arguement is predecated on the presupposition that anyone who tests positive for pot is addicte [View All]

which simply isnt so

you said "there aren't really that many businesses that knowingly hire folks who have a lifelong disease requiring medical help"

and AA isnt a science, it's a religion, based on an application of the Oxford group, and it's essentially unchanged since 1938. Science evolves based on evidence, religion remains unchanged based on beliefs. AA is clearly a religion, not a science

your statements scar someone for life in society with a devestating stigma, because they can never prove whether or not they have 'a disease' because there was never any scientific evidence that they had 'the disease' in the first place. It is a *religious'* classification, not a scientific one. How can you prove you dont have something which has no evidence of it's presence? I say 'you have it', you're harmed, and there's nothing you can do to contest it.

again, you said "there aren't really that many businesses that knowingly hire folks who have a lifelong disease requiring medical help"

it's because of people like you that people can get stigmantized for life into 2nd class existence because they cant un-prove unproven allegations, based on *religion*, not science

tell me just one case of a scientific medical treatment (outside of the addictions industry) that calls for a belief in a 'higher power' (that can be God, a tree or a rock) as central to the treatment - give me just one example

what's the motivation? money - lots of money. The addiction industry can tap the health insurance of anyone so accused - and the beauty is, there's no accountability for the industry whatsoever, because it's 'incurable'. what a luxury, to make big money with no proof of performance, whatsoever