Most people have jobs where most of their cognitive capacity matters not one whit. You can stock shelves or do office work while stoned out of your mind (and people do). For some reason we don't love the idea, but tbqh these jobs are broadly torture anyway - so why are people not allowed to make them bearable?
The solution is that society shouldn’t make people dependent on any single means of income for survival, not that no one gets rejected/disbarred from any occupation ever. Ultimately any negativity towards a person lies along a spectrum, and it’s important not to lose sight of the degree of harm involved.
The revoking of professional licenses is not (and should not be) intended as punishment of the individual in question, but rather limiting the damage to society of their recklessness.
That can sometimes be a slippery slope of its own, but I will argue that it’s a somewhat different slope (the “for the greater good” slope) from the “totalitarian government hates nonconformity” slope. Sometimes they intersect though.
People supporting any form of “Re-education camps” or course do not end up on the right side of history.
If you are in support of the forced “re education” of an individual, under threat of revoking their livelihood, no matter your ideological leanings, I would encourage you to think on this.
Back to the matter at hand: There’s a difference between (potentially) losing your professional license for beliefs and practices related to your professional practice, and being put in a re-education camp. The former isn’t always right either (and can sometimes be weaponzied for political reasons), but they’re not the same thing.
(Speaking as someone from an authoritarian/totalitarian country that puts people in re-education camps, and sometimes weaponizes professional licensing for political reasons. JP’s case looks more like an unfortunate coincidence than that.)
Genuinely curious if there are any examples for large scale reparations such as Jews post WW2 or Armenians post-genocide or Cambodian people post-Khmer Rouge.
“… 40 years after the internment camps closed—President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act, which offered a formal apology and paid $20,000 to each survivor.”
The key difference here, is that Japanese-Americans were imprisoned, and as such there were records about who, when, where and how long people were imprisoned.
That makes reparations very easy - if you were imprisoned unfairly, you were entitled to payment.
You can easily read "identified as ‘Black/African American’ on public documents", "proof of residency", "Record of attendance", and other things which require evidentiary records.
Even "Descendant of someone enslaved through US chattel slavery before" requires records.
VCs and boards will look at this negatively. Their expectation is that you are 100% focused on the company they backed.
By definition, you cannot be 100% focused on their company if you have two jobs.
There are exceptions when companies are performing well and founders have an exceptional track record (see: Jack Dorsey square/Twitter, Elon’s multiple ceo roles, etc)
The point is that that country has strong general laws against corruption. The US does not; deceiving consumers is largely excused here, and stiff punishments are reserved for deceiving investors.
If something can have a positive effect it can also have a negative effect. The idea that weed is a net positive with no downsides just isn’t reality.