Drug testing?

[haydes55]

This is causing drama on fb. SNZ is now drug testing by taking urine samples. People are complaining because they can't get stoned the week before a race meeting.

Do you think it's fair to drug test people who are operating bikes which are capable of killing and harming people?

Side note, mouth swabs have been offered as an alternative to check if any drugs have been taken recently, but will a swab show drugs taken through injection, snorting or up the bum? And should SNZ give a shit if the drugs were taken recently or is any indication of drugs enough to justify a ban?

[steveyb]

Ah shit, I thought you were going to say you had some and wanted to share......


Answer to question is a bit of a no-brainer I would think....

[quickbuck]

Bring it on..... :)

[haydes55]

You would think it was a no brainer, but according to a 40+ year old, my comments about it making racing safer for everyone makes me immature?

I'd rather not be on a race track with a person who isn't 100% sober. When you race, another competitor can cause you serious injuries. On drugs the risk of that happening increase.

And no I'm not giving away drugs lol

[slofox]

I'd rather race against someone who was stoned the night before than one who was pissed to the eyes.

The whole "drugs" issue studiously avoids "legal" drugs.

[scott411]

This is causing drama on fb. SNZ is now drug testing by taking urine samples. People are complaining because they can't get stoned the week before a race meeting.

Do you think it's fair to drug test people who are operating bikes which are capable of killing and harming people?

Side note, mouth swabs have been offered as an alternative to check if any drugs have been taken recently, but will a swab show drugs taken through injection, snorting or up the bum? And should SNZ give a shit if the drugs were taken recently or is any indication of drugs enough to justify a ban?

MNZ have drug tested for a long time, there was a very well known racer that got banned for a year for testing positive for recreational drugs, have not seen them around the mx tracks for a few years,

I know i got put though a drug and alcahol test at huntly speedway a few years ago when i was racing their, , think it was a club thing tho,

[Katman]

The presence of THC in one's system does not necessarily indicate impairment.

[Robert Taylor]

Drug test the ''mechanics'' as well. I bet more than a few riders have come to grief because of improperly prepared machines ( loose caliper bolts etc ) That's a real potential to injure or kill a rider and others in his/her path.

[imdying]

Will it include legal that warn of impairment on the box, like antihistamines? Does that mean that racers affected by hayfever can no longer race in the summer?

[imdying]

Drug test the ''mechanics'' as well. I bet more than a few riders have come to grief because of improperly prepared machines ( loose caliper bolts etc ) That's a real potential to injure or kill a rider and others in his/her path.The powers that be would be highly negligent if this was not the case! I mean, it's an identified hazard, and they're already providing testing facilities... to not carry it out on mechanics as well would be effectively wasting the effort putting into testing the riders.

[bluninja]

Drug test the ''mechanics'' as well. I bet more than a few riders have come to grief because of improperly prepared machines ( loose caliper bolts etc ) That's a real potential to injure or kill a rider and others in his/her path.

Do you drug test yourself and your mechanics? :innocent: I agree loose calliper bolts can have the same effects on road bikes. I thought the scrutineering process would pick up loose bolts, as well as those that haven't been lock wired. Perhaps we should drug test the scrutineers too :facepalm:

[haydes55]

The presence of THC in one's system does not necessarily indicate impairment.




It is impossible to tell if a person tests positive to THC whether they are or aren't impaired.

If a fatality occurs and an involved competitor tests positive for THC, would the police charge the competitor? Whether impaired or not, police would lay charges.

[yod]

The presence of THC in one's system does not necessarily indicate impairment.

correct, it remains in the system for weeks

[haydes55]

Drug test the ''mechanics'' as well. I bet more than a few riders have come to grief because of improperly prepared machines ( loose caliper bolts etc ) That's a real potential to injure or kill a rider and others in his/her path.




good thing we have no brakes haha.

90% of the time riders are their own mechanics. Usually if a rider has a mechanic they are their father. All bikes are scrutineered and I know myself when I rode I would double check anything someone else touched.

[haydes55]

Will it include legal that warn of impairment on the box, like antihistamines? Does that mean that racers affected by hayfever can no longer race in the summer?






a doctors note is accepted for antihistamines and codeine. Being a urine sample, a positive result for explained substances won't stop you from racing the meeting but it may be tested after the positive reading to test the level of the drug in your system (too much codeine to be explained will be a ban).

[Akzle]

drugs are excellent. Perhaps they should split up the grids, drugged, and not.
See who gets better times.

[Katman]

It is impossible to tell if a person tests positive to THC whether they are or aren't impaired.


And for that very reason there are many people who lose their jobs simply due to the fact that, because Cannabis is still illegal, employers don't have to even bother considering whether the person was actually impaired.

[Billy]

MNZ have drug tested for a long time, there was a very well known racer that got banned for a year for testing positive for recreational drugs, have not seen them around the mx tracks for a few years,

I know i got put though a drug and alcahol test at huntly speedway a few years ago when i was racing their, , think it was a club thing tho,

Not quite correct,

MNZ have a contract with drug free sport NZ,They have,To date done the testing for us,It is all secret squirrel stuff,They contacted me about this time last year and informed me they wanted to test at the NZGP meeting at Ruapuna,I was not allowed to inform anybody and they wouldn't even tell me wich riders or from which classes til the very last moment,That said,The President has aquired a testing kit from MA and I believe there is a plan in place for even more testing to take place,We have also purchased a breath screening machine and it will be in use at random meetings from here on.

[SMOKEU]

Put it this way. Motorcycle racing IS dangerous, no matter what way you look at it. Riding at speeds often exceeding 200kmh in close proximity to other riders all pushing their limits close to 100% in order to win a race, and these people are worried about someone who tokes up in their spare time? If you're prepared to accept that risk, then the odd bud smoker should be the least of your worries.

I do really like the idea Akzle has about splitting the riders up into groups of wasted/not wasted. That would be interesting!

[Hitcher]

Surely a winning rider who is wasted should get extra credit? And bonus extra credit awarded if their crew was also wasted?

[haydes55]

The risks are high enough without adding the risk of some riders not having full mental capabilities.

Sent from my RM-821_eu_euro1_500 using Tapatalk

[Katman]

The risks are high enough without adding the risk of some riders not having full mental capabilities.


There's a great many on here who would fall into that category - without ever having touched drugs.

[Hitcher]

The risks are high enough without adding the risk of some riders not having full mental capabilities.


"Full" is a relative term. Are we talking about mental acuity testing or pharmaceutical impairment testing?

There are some pretty dense dweebs who ride sober, myself included. There are probably some Mensa types who, even three-quarters cut, could still leave us gasping.

[unstuck]

I am willing to test any drugs you want. For the good of humanity of course.:yes:

[Hitcher]

I am willing to test any drugs you want. For the good of humanity of course.

Sweet. I one that should work famously on that score.

[unstuck]

Sweet. I one that should work famously on that score.

KEH......:wacko:

[Grumph]

Not quite correct,

MNZ have a contract with drug free sport NZ,They have,To date done the testing for us,It is all secret squirrel stuff,They contacted me about this time last year and informed me they wanted to test at the NZGP meeting at Ruapuna,I was not allowed to inform anybody and they wouldn't even tell me wich riders or from which classes til the very last moment,That said,The President has aquired a testing kit from MA and I believe there is a plan in place for even more testing to take place,We have also purchased a breath screening machine and it will be in use at random meetings from here on.

All well and good - bring out the breath tester at committee meetings and the AGM please...

There's an interesting question in my mind around deer velvet too...given the furore when V J Singh tested positive for banned substances after taking it, the current series of ads on TV raise my eyebrows a little....

[Robert Taylor]

Do you drug test yourself and your mechanics? :innocent: I agree loose calliper bolts can have the same effects on road bikes. I thought the scrutineering process would pick up loose bolts, as well as those that haven't been lock wired. Perhaps we should drug test the scrutineers too :facepalm:

The scrutineering process is less stringent than it once was ( like everything ) The only drugs that I take are prescription ( as necessary ) and I don't take illegal drugs, at all. I believe in the death penalty for sellers of hard drugs.

[Katman]

The only drugs that I take are prescription.......

Have you met Ed?

[Madness]

The risks are high enough without adding the risk of some riders not having full mental capabilities.

Testing for THC using current methods isn't going to identify any perceived "impairment" or loss of cognitive function. For this reason I view the likes of NZDDA and the other cunts operating in this new-found industry to be nothing more than leeches.

You say you don't need any extra danger added to the sport yet surely this exercise is about an attempt at removing drug-users rather than adding more. Assuming there's recreational cannabis users on starting lines & grids across the country right now, how the fuck isn't everyone dead already?

You'd be better off introducing mandatory alcohol breath-testing at all race meets & adopt a 50mic limit. In time technology will no doubt evolve to allow for testing for cannabis "impairment". Until then it's just a Witch Hunt.

[SMOKEU]

I reckon we should see what it's like to do a track attack high on P, and then compare lap times vs sober.

[haydes55]

There is already random breath testing. We pull out a few scrutineering cards at random from each class. 0.01 is enough to not be riding.

If we don't test for any THC then people can race high.

[Madness]

If we don't test for any THC then people can race high.

You're a bit slow eh?

Testing for the presence of THC is not the same as testing for being high.

I tried P once. Rode a ZZR1100 from Auckland to Wellington on a beautiful autumn day. It was fucking epic.

[wharfy]

Hmm... I doubt any racers are likely to get "high" before a race or have a couple of gins for breakfast, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone rocked up impaired from the night before. Some bikers like to party hard !
I would have no problem with breath testing - other drugs ? I dunno probably in the "too hard" basket.
I take some prescription medication, none of which is supposed to affect driving, I don't take the diuretic when I'm racing 'cause having to stop for a piss would do nothing to improve my miserable lap times. I think one affects short term memory but I can't remember which one.

[haydes55]

You're a bit slow eh?

Testing for the presence of THC is not the same as testing for being high.

.

you're a bit slow eh?


That's what I'm saying. There is no test for being actually high. The closest test we have is to test for THC.

We could do a swab for THC and a urine sample for all other drugs. Double the cost and then it looks like an official body is condoning recreational use in their competitors. Great look for an industry which is already under media scrutiny.

When a serious injury happens, the police do tests and ask questions. If SNZ can't answer, SNZ can face fines that would near bankrupt the entire organisation.

[CHOPPA]

Whats SNZ?

[Kickaha]

Whats SNZ?

Speedway NZ

[jellywrestler]

I thought the scrutineering process would pick up loose bolts, The scrutineers do not use tools to check tightness of items
besides bikes are usualy scrutinneered at the start of a meeting, from then the wheels can be changed a number of times..........

[jellywrestler]

I do really like the idea Akzle has about splitting the riders up into groups of wasted/not wasted. That would be interesting!
they could do races like at the moto gp in aussie, 10 laps then in cause they'd have the munchies, then back for another 10 laps????

[jellywrestler]

I believe in the death penalty for sellers of hard drugs. Death by Bongo...

[Madness]

you're a bit slow eh?


That's what I'm saying. There is no test for being actually high. The closest test we have is to test for THC.

We could do a swab for THC and a urine sample for all other drugs. Double the cost and then it looks like an official body is condoning recreational use in their competitors. Great look for an industry which is already under media scrutiny.

When a serious injury happens, the police do tests and ask questions. If SNZ can't answer, SNZ can face fines that would near bankrupt the entire organisation.

Your post is confusing, probably because you're a bit slow.

Why should the governing body of a minority sport spend money it probably doesn't have to pay for tests that fail to conclusively reduce any perceived risk through cannabis use. Instead, as you're suggesting, the sole benefit of such testing would be window dressing in the eyes of the media.

Anyhoo, who the fuck wants to be involved in an amateur sport where the governing body wants to know what it's participants got up to five weeks ago in the privacy of their own home? If sports in this country are being managed by people of such a mindset I think it's a sad day indeed.

[haydes55]

If the only argument against drug testing is "but I want to smoke weed" then drug testing obviously needs to be implemented more.

[Madness]

If the only argument against drug testing is "but I want to smoke weed" then drug testing obviously needs to be implemented more.

By the same failed logic you should also look to implement a test to find people who have been pissed at any stage in the five weeks prior to a race. Only fair, innit?

[haydes55]

The effects of alcohol last until alcohol is no longer present in your system. If you get mega drunk Friday, you may fail on Sunday. The effects of Crack last until crack is out of your system. Get wasted on Friday, still fail on Sunday.

The effects of THC slow down your brain whilst it is in your system. 5 weeks in your system is probably an overkill for anyone over 40kg.

I used to smoke weed a bit. I know several days after having a session I would still occasionally slur words, stutter and have concentration lapses.

I know weed effects every one differently. Just like the speed limit, the rules are for everyone including the people who are actually getting stone on race day and the scrawny girl who is effected for weeks. Yes it may be tough on the people who can handle it. But it would be unfair to people if we were to say, "yea you can race, you're a big guy who can handle your weed" then say "sorry you're just too skinny, you could still be intoxicated".

One rule for all, a limit would mean endorsing drug use.

[tail_end_charlie]

If the only argument against drug testing is "but I want to smoke weed" then drug testing obviously needs to be implemented more.

Agreed!


By the same failed logic you should also look to implement a test to find people who have been pissed at any stage in the five weeks prior to a race. Only fair, innit?

Not really, considering the last time I checked weed is illegal (if you are tested at any point and cannabis is present, you're out!) where as alcohol is illegal only above a certain limit.

If you want weed treated the same as alcohol then get the government to change the laws, it's a fucking democratic process so if you really cared you could make it happen. Otherwise, if you test positive for THC, your out, deal with it bitch. :2guns:

[nzspokes]

If the only argument against drug testing is "but I want to smoke weed" then drug testing obviously needs to be implemented more.

While back at a place I worked, bosses said we had drug testing starting the next week at random on a Friday. 3 guys never showed up again.

We never did the testing. Worked a treat.

And those that think a little weed does no harm have not seen the long term effects. I have a family member that has been severely effected just from weed. Sad really. Booze does damage to. Shame really.

[Akzle]

the enlightened good democratic laws also state that travelling over 100km an hour is dangerous.
Maybe that arbitrary limit should be applied to participants as well, y'know. For safety...

[Kiwi Graham]

The presence of THC in one's system does not necessarily indicate impairment.
Erm that would depend on when it was taken and how much was taken, Ive seen some pretty 'impaired' indirviduals that have THC in their system

correct, it remains in the system for weeks
90 days approx

Your post is confusing, probably because you're a bit slow.

Why should the governing body of a minority sport spend money it probably doesn't have to pay for tests that fail to conclusively reduce any perceived risk through cannabis use. Instead, as you're suggesting, the sole benefit of such testing would be window dressing in the eyes of the media.

Anyhoo, who the fuck wants to be involved in an amateur sport where the governing body wants to know what it's participants got up to five weeks ago in the privacy of their own home? If sports in this country are being managed by people of such a mindset I think it's a sad day indeed.

:facepalm:
Why would anyone want to line up on the grid with a fellow competitor who is under the influence of anything that could impair their ability :weird: I dont care what it is they have taken or when I just dont want it outbraking itself into me thanks.

Take the bloody drugs if you want, just dont go racing as well its your choice what you do. Just dont involve me please, I've got a whole family I need to get back to at the end of the meeting.
KG

[jellywrestler]

so what about legal highs????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????

[Katman]

Erm that would depend on when it was taken and how much was taken, Ive seen some pretty 'impaired' indirviduals that have THC in their system


Hence the word 'necessarily' in my post Graham.

[nzspokes]

Take the bloody drugs if you want, just dont go racing as well its your choice what you do. Just dont involve me please, I've got a whole family I need to get back to at the end of the meeting.
KG

And thats the answer to the whole thread. Same goes for all situations where you put others at risk for your little "high". Even more so for the workplace where you can hurt or kill others.

[Madness]

The effects of THC slow down your brain whilst it is in your system. 5 weeks in your system is probably an overkill for anyone over 40kg.

I used to smoke weed a bit. I know several days after having a session I would still occasionally slur words, stutter and have concentration lapses.

So Cannabis smoking left you with slurred speech for a couple of days after consumption yet you're happy to implement testing that can pick up residual THC weeks and weeks after the event, when you concede there is unlikely to be any effects present. Witch hunt.


Not really, considering the last time I checked weed is illegal (if you are tested at any point and cannabis is present, you're out!) where as alcohol is illegal only above a certain limit.

If you want weed treated the same as alcohol then get the government to change the laws, it's a fucking democratic process so if you really cared you could make it happen. Otherwise, if you test positive for THC, your out, deal with it bitch. :2guns:

There are efforts being made in this area already. Actually, fuck responding to your pathetic post, I just read your disclaimer. As you were, bitch.


And those that think a little weed does no harm have not seen the long term effects. I have a family member that has been severely effected just from weed. Sad really. Booze does damage to. Shame really.

Ever think that maybe your relative just shared the same genes as yourself & is simply a little retarded?


Take the bloody drugs if you want, just dont go racing as well its your choice what you do. Just dont involve me please, I've got a whole family I need to get back to at the end of the meeting.
KG

Cool, I will & I won't. In fact, why the fuck would I even want to spectate at an event that the organisers are spending my ticket money on draconian measures at an attempt to window-dress a situation for the media whilst persecuting people for doing something that has no effect on the racing itself?

When did amateur sports organisations become the enforcers of our laws & upholders of morals? Until such time as testing for actual "impairment" from Cannabis use replaces what is currently being discussed, that's in effect all you're doing.

Muppets.

[wharfy]

cool, i will & i won't. In fact, why the fuck would i even want to spectate at an event that the organisers are spending my ticket money on draconian measures at an attempt to window-dress a situation for the media whilst persecuting people for doing something that has no effect on the racing itself?

When did amateur sports organisations become the enforcers of our laws & upholders of morals? Until such time as testing for actual "impairment" from cannabis use replaces what is currently being discussed, that's in effect all you're doing.

Muppets.
......
Ok :)

[SMOKEU]

I used to smoke weed a bit. I know several days after having a session I would still occasionally slur words, stutter and have concentration lapses.


That's never happened to me. I feel no different if I don't smoke for a week, or if I smoked heavily the night before.




Not really, considering the last time I checked weed is illegal (if you are tested at any point and cannabis is present, you're out!) where as alcohol is illegal only above a certain limit.

If you want weed treated the same as alcohol then get the government to change the laws, it's a fucking democratic process so if you really cared you could make it happen. Otherwise, if you test positive for THC, your out, deal with it bitch. :2guns:

Ask any reputable medical doctor about what is worse for the body; alcohol or cannabis. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which causes the most harm. When was the last time you saw someone get high off pot and then try to start a scrap or vandalize property (assuming the person is not under the influence of any other substances)?


Just dont involve me please, I've got a whole family I need to get back to at the end of the meeting.


If you're that worried about your safety, then why are you racing a motorcycle in the first place? Take up knitting or gardening instead.


so what about legal highs????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????

That's an excellent point! Many of these synthetic cannabis products are far more potent than the real thing, and the effects can be both scary and unpredictable.




And those that think a little weed does no harm have not seen the long term effects. I have a family member that has been severely effected just from weed. Sad really. Booze does damage to. Shame really.

Correlation does not equal causation. I'm sure there are plenty of mental health patients that eat KFC and drink Pepsi, but does that mean that those things cause mental health issues?

[onearmedbandit]

I used to smoke weed a bit. I know several days after having a session I would still occasionally slur words, stutter and have concentration lapses.



Really? I think there were other issues going on, as in all my years of smoking, and sharing those years with many many friends I've never once struck someone suffering from slurred words or stuttering solely from smoking weed. But that's an entirely different thread.

[insomnia01]

drinking OR smoking in moderation does not mean you have to get off your face to enjoy whatever high your on surely !!

[Bassmatt]

When are they starting the " I was up all last night night and haven't been to bed" tests and the "Have had a fight with the missus and I'm really pissed off" tests etc etc?

[haydes55]

So Cannabis smoking left you with slurred speech for a couple of days after consumption yet you're happy to implement testing that can pick up residual THC weeks and weeks after the event, when you concede there is unlikely to be any effects present. Witch hunt.

.






My point is, everyone is different, every bud is different, everyone's tolerances are different.

Am I effected by weed after 48 hours after a session? Yes.

Are you effected by weed 48 hours after a session? Maybe not.

Is Joe Blogs effected by weed 3 weeks after he smoked an ounce in a night? We can't test his level of impairment, and he will lie and say he is fine if he isn't. Our only option is to test his urine for traces of THC.

I know people who can't have an energy drink because they get the shakes and hyperactive, yet I can drink 2L of V in an hour and feel no energy boost.

Fact of the matter is there are people who will be at greater risk to themselves and others, even after several days/weeks sobriety.

Urine testing covers all bases, tests for all drugs and can be tested further.

All drugs are illegal substances, all illegal substances are banned in the rule book, officials have to enforce the rule book.

[Katman]

All drugs are illegal substances, all illegal substances are banned in the rule book, officials have to enforce the rule book.

As has already been asked - what about legal highs?

[haydes55]

Legal highs were banned weren't they?

I'd presume they will display a "not negative" result in the wees. I'm not sure though, 2 ways to find out, ask someone who knows, or give it a crack.

[jellywrestler]

yet I can drink 2L of V in an hour and
then get on Kiwibiker...

[steveyb]

That's never happened to me. I feel no different if I don't smoke for a week, or if I smoked heavily the night before.


Now we know you actually talking absolute crap for the sake of it to try and make some half-arsed anarchistic point.
If you have no effects from smoking dope then why bother doing it, or you are so sensitized to it that you have reached a constant level of intoxication that you now understand to be your norm. I know I went from being a A/B student at school to a B/C student after I got into a bit of the herb. If you "don't feel any different" you are bullshitting everyone, especially yourself.

The science of cause and effect of THC and alcohol (being the two most common recreational drugs) is irrefutable.

When a drug impaired driver ploughs into your family next Friday night in the city, I want you to state, in public, that is was OK for him/her to be out there cos it is their free choice and yours for sharing the road with them.

(I had put Wanker and the end of my post, but thought I would take it out to be diplomatic).

[Katman]

Legal highs were banned weren't they?


You should probably pay a little more attention to current affairs rather than opening your mouth and proving you don't know what you're talking about.

[Katman]

Now we know you actually talking absolute crap for the sake of it to try and make some half-arsed anarchistic point.
If you have no effects from smoking dope then why bother doing it, or you are so sensitized to it that you have reached a constant level of intoxication that you now understand to be your norm. I know I went from being a A/B student at school to a B/C student after I got into a bit of the herb. If you "don't feel any different" you are bullshitting everyone, especially yourself.


You don't read too good, do you Steve?

[SMOKEU]

Now we know you actually talking absolute crap for the sake of it to try and make some half-arsed anarchistic point.
If you have no effects from smoking dope then why bother doing it, or you are so sensitized to it that you have reached a constant level of intoxication that you now understand to be your norm. I know I went from being a A/B student at school to a B/C student after I got into a bit of the herb. If you "don't feel any different" you are bullshitting everyone, especially yourself.

The science of cause and effect of THC and alcohol (being the two most common recreational drugs) is irrefutable.

When a drug impaired driver ploughs into your family next Friday night in the city, I want you to state, in public, that is was OK for him/her to be out there cos it is their free choice and yours for sharing the road with them.

(I had put Wanker and the end of my post, but thought I would take it out to be diplomatic).

I'm stating facts, not "some half-arsed anarchistic point" as you state. Just because you can't handle weed doesn't mean that everyone else is a pussy like you are. I'm consistently getting some of the better grades in my studies toward my diploma at polytech, and there have been several exams where I've come in the top 2 out of a class of 10-15 people. I don't see how weed makes people as stupid as you say it does, as my academic results speak for themselves. There have been several papers that I've passed with an A or A- grade overall, and one where I got an A+ overall. So that makes me such a huge failure, doesn't it?

Of course I get effects after smoking up, but those effects do not present themselves once the intoxication is over. I'm not "so sensitized to it that you have reached a constant level of intoxication that you now understand to be your norm" as I don't even smoke every day, and the days that I do toke up I'm not doing it all day long. I do my studies when I'm sober, and then have a puff to relax at the end of a hard day. The effects of alcohol on ones driving ability is far greater than having a puff of pot, and you'd have to be a bit dumb or ignorant to think otherwise.

There is a huge difference between use and abuse; abusing ANYTHING can be harmful. People have died from drinking too much water, and looking at the obesity rate of NZ goes to show what overeating does and the severe damage it does to the body. Excessive exercise has also been proven to be harmful. Caffeine has been known to kill people, too. So the point is, whatever you do, do it in moderation.

[EJK]

<img src="http://www.loveoflifequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Willie-Nelson-quote-on-Lance-Armstrong-and-drugs-500x453.jpg" />

[SMOKEU]

I'm still waiting for a justifiable excuse to keep criminalizing cannabis, other than "drugs are bad, mkay".

[bluninja]

I'm stating facts, not "some half-arsed anarchistic point" as you state. Just because you can't handle weed doesn't mean that everyone else is a pussy like you are. I'm consistently getting some of the better grades in my studies toward my diploma at polytech, and there have been several exams where I've come in the top 2 out of a class of 10-15 people. I don't see how weed makes people as stupid as you say it does, as my academic results speak for themselves. There have been several papers that I've passed with an A or A- grade overall, and one where I got an A+ overall. So that makes me such a huge failure, doesn't it?

That all depends on the standard of papers you are taking...Sadly I've scored 1000 (perfect score) in a Microsoft exam...that doesn't show great brain function, merely that the exam was pretty simple.


Of course I get effects after smoking up, but those effects do not present themselves once the intoxication is over. I'm not "so sensitized to it that you have reached a constant level of intoxication that you now understand to be your norm" as I don't even smoke every day, and the days that I do toke up I'm not doing it all day long. I do my studies when I'm sober, and then have a puff to relax at the end of a hard day. The effects of alcohol on ones driving ability is far greater than having a puff of pot, and you'd have to be a bit dumb or ignorant to think otherwise.

You need to compare apples with apples instead of making fallacious statements. Most people don't consume alcohol all day long or every day either. A single unit of alcohol may have less effect than a single puff of pot depending on the strength of the drug and the size of the puff. You'd be a bit dumb or ignorant to think otherwise. Or should we compare a sip/gulp/swallow of alcohol with a puff of pot....just compare apples and apples.



There is a huge difference between use and abuse; abusing ANYTHING can be harmful. People have died from drinking too much water, and looking at the obesity rate of NZ goes to show what overeating does and the severe damage it does to the body. Excessive exercise has also been proven to be harmful. Caffeine has been known to kill people, too. So the point is, whatever you do, do it in moderation.

Yes and no, use to heavy use to abuse to addiction is a continuum and not some objective fixed points. Who decides what is use, what is use and what is moderation?

[Kiwi Graham]

I'm still waiting for a justifiable excuse to keep criminalizing cannabis, other than "drugs are bad, mkay".

For someone who claims to get 'A' grades in exams you dont come across as very smart!!

Some of us see the reults of drug abuse every day and have to work at cleaning the mess up they have made of themselves, the devastation wrought on thier families........and their victimes.

But hey its not the drugs fault eh its just a natural plant what harm can it do :brick:

[SMOKEU]

That all depends on the standard of papers you are taking...Sadly I've scored 1000 (perfect score) in a Microsoft exam...that doesn't show great brain function, merely that the exam was pretty simple.

You need to compare apples with apples instead of making fallacious statements. Most people don't consume alcohol all day long or every day either. A single unit of alcohol may have less effect than a single puff of pot depending on the strength of the drug and the size of the puff. You'd be a bit dumb or ignorant to think otherwise. Or should we compare a sip/gulp/swallow of alcohol with a puff of pot....just compare apples and apples.

Yes and no, use to heavy use to abuse to addiction is a continuum and not some objective fixed points. Who decides what is use, what is use and what is moderation?

1. I was stating my results in relation to the other students, most of whom probably don't smoke weed. It's not a subject I bring up with my fellow students, so I don't have any statistics to give as to how many do or don't smoke up.

2. Being shitfaced drunk (up to the point of vomiting) will undeniably cause more impairment than being very stoned after smoking as much as the user can smoke. If you don't believe me, go to a jay day sometime, and then go to a busy nightclub or pub in the early hours of Saturday or Sunday morning when the drinkers are likely to have reached their peak levels of intoxication. Make some observations and compare the differences in the general conduct of the different groups.

3. An addiction or problem drug use is when the substance negatively affects the day to day life of the user, like getting in the way of work or family commitments. If the user can't easily go a single day or 2 without their substance of choice, then that's an addiction. As I said before, I regularly stop smoking buds for a few consecutive days, with no withdrawal symptoms, and in any given week I never smoke every single day. Cannabis is not physically addictive in the way alcohol, tobacco or caffeine are.

[bluninja]

I'm still waiting for a justifiable excuse to keep criminalizing cannabis, other than "drugs are bad, mkay".

Just from a social point of view links have been found between the increase in availability of alcohol retail outlets and increase in alcohol related issues (addiction, domestic violence, public nuisance). They've also been found between the number of pokie machines and gambling addictions and it's social fallout. IF we decriminalise yet another recreational drug, or addictive vector what's the chances that the crime and social consequences of that drug will skyrocket? After all there are loads of people running round stealing shit to pay for their weed; you think that will decrease just cos it became legal?

Personally I believe all adults should be able to make a balanced judgement on what they inhale, ingest, or inject without those things being illegal. However the user should accept that laws should be in place to protect other people from their drug influenced actions (banning in public places, workplaces, whilst operating vehicles etc) and accept severe consequences if they harm anyone.

[SMOKEU]

For someone who claims to get 'A' grades in exams you dont come across as very smart!!

Some of us see the reults of drug abuse every day and have to work at cleaning the mess up they have made of themselves, the devastation wrought on thier families........and their victimes.

But hey its not the drugs fault eh its just a natural plant what harm can it do :brick:

It's incredibly naive to make a blanket statement about the negative effects of drugs in general without being more specific. Nutmeg is a drug, and so is paracetamol, methamphetamine, caffeine, tobacco and codeine. The effects of those substances are vastly different, and comparing a casual pot smoker to a junkie is a bit silly at best. I have no doubt that some drugs can be extremely harmful to the user, and their family, hence the reason why I've never taken any hard drugs.

[SMOKEU]

Just from a social point of view links have been found between the increase in availability of alcohol retail outlets and increase in alcohol related issues (addiction, domestic violence, public nuisance). They've also been found between the number of pokie machines and gambling addictions and it's social fallout. IF we decriminalise yet another recreational drug, or addictive vector what's the chances that the crime and social consequences of that drug will skyrocket? After all there are loads of people running round stealing shit to pay for their weed; you think that will decrease just cos it became legal?

Personally I believe all adults should be able to make a balanced judgement on what they inhale, ingest, or inject without those things being illegal. However the user should accept that laws should be in place to protect other people from their drug influenced actions (banning in public places, workplaces, whilst operating vehicles etc) and accept severe consequences if they harm anyone.

Your first paragraph is exactly the type of politically correct nonsense that we are plagued by as a society. We live in a state of diminished responsibility, so rather than holding an individual responsible for their own actions, we punish the majority for the actions of the minority. Just look at what happens in court cases every day "It's not little Johnny's fault he bashed the dairy owner and robbed him, he was drunk at the time and addicted to xyz drug and needed money for his fix". We need to hold the individual user responsible for their own actions, and stop passing the blame. If I fuck up, then I am willing to admit fault and accept the repercussions, rather than using society as a scapegoat. If people are addicted to gambling, then it's THEIR fault, not the pokies. No one forced the gambler to gamble. They CHOOSE to gamble. If people drink too much alcohol and cause problems, again, it was their CHOICE to drink alcohol and act like a complete fuckwit.

The people that really want to smoke buds will already be doing so. Legalizing it will not cause a dramatic long term increase in the number of users. I've never met a single person who has said "I really want to smoke weed, but I'm too scared of getting arrested". If weed were legal there would certainly be less crime surrounding it, and prices would probably decrease accordingly.

[insomnia01]

<img src="http://www.loveoflifequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Willie-Nelson-quote-on-Lance-Armstrong-and-drugs-500x453.jpg" />

:killingme Golden Go WIllie

[haydes55]

I'm all for legalising weed, but this topic is about testing, not legalising.

As it stands weed is illegal, the government has deemed it as a harmful substance with risks associated with consumption (whether medical or social). As an entity SNZ are required to represent racers to promote the sport, assist running meetings and do their best to ensure any action to improve chances of safety are taken.

SNZ is not big enough to conduct studies and determine if a certain level of THC is safe or not, nor should it be their issue. There is no line to draw because any level will be challenged. If they say you must have below x.xxg/L of THC in your system to race, the police would rape SNZ in court if they investigate a crash.

The current rule is zero tolerance. Same with alcohol. If a racer blows a 0.001 on the breathalyzer they get a 12 month ban.

[ducatilover]

I agree with the drug testing idea. I do understand the presence of THC doesn't have to mean the person is impaired, which can be an issue. If it were legal it would be a.different story I suppose.

Having worked in mental health and seen the long term effects of many kinds of substance use, and abuse, I would advise against heavy pot smoking. But that's another thread, which has been done to death and all the speculative and supposed facts have already been shared, and it is still an illegal substance. Get the the fuck over it.

[scrivy]

I can't wait to get on a 747 next time and hope like hell my pilot is stoned....... :facepalm:


Keep 'intoxicated' people off the track.
Or if they want to do it, let them do track days by themselves, just not around me or my friends.:love:

[Tony.OK]

We need to hold the individual user responsible for their own actions, and stop passing the blame. If I fuck up, then I am willing to admit fault and accept the repercussions, rather than using society as a scapegoat. If people are addicted to gambling, then it's THEIR fault, not the pokies. No one forced the gambler to gamble. They CHOOSE to gamble. If people drink too much alcohol and cause problems, again, it was their CHOICE to drink alcohol and act like a complete fuckwit.

Choice being the key word here.................its really simple, if ya choose to race, then you'll have to choose to not take drugs. Who cares how or what tests they use, if the choice to race was made then you'll accept that test will be carried out.

Better to accept a test before a "fuck up" happens that could involve others.

Seeing as this is about testing in racing that's all that needs to be said really.

All about CHOICE eh?

[SMOKEU]

I'm all for legalising weed, but this topic is about testing, not legalising.

As it stands weed is illegal, the government has deemed it as a harmful substance with risks associated with consumption (whether medical or social). As an entity SNZ are required to represent racers to promote the sport, assist running meetings and do their best to ensure any action to improve chances of safety are taken.

SNZ is not big enough to conduct studies and determine if a certain level of THC is safe or not, nor should it be their issue. There is no line to draw because any level will be challenged. If they say you must have below x.xxg/L of THC in your system to race, the police would rape SNZ in court if they investigate a crash.

The current rule is zero tolerance. Same with alcohol. If a racer blows a 0.001 on the breathalyzer they get a 12 month ban.

If the rider is hungover from a heavy alcohol drinking session the night before, then they might not have any alcohol in their breath, yet they will certainly be impaired in some way, possibly to a more significant extent than if they had been smoking dope just before the race. How do you propose to legislate against that?


I can't wait to get on a 747 next time and hope like hell my pilot is stoned....... :facepalm:



As long as the PIC is "straight", then if the FO is a bit peeled and they're the PF then it doesn't really matter, as the PIC can take over at any stage. If they're doing a complicated instrument approach then it's probably best not to be high though, as the chances of fucking up will be a bit high. Although I'm sure the Cunts Against Aviation would have something to say about that, but they're always out to be a buzz kill.

[haydes55]

If they were hung over, they would show above 0.001 BAC.

No one can legislate against every threat, but drugs are very easy to legislate against and enforce.

Several officials also have the power to remove anyone from racing if it is an issue of safety. People have been put on the trailer whilst 100% sober.

[scrivy]

As long as the PIC is "straight", then if the FO is a bit peeled and they're the PF then it doesn't really matter, as the PIC can take over at any stage. If they're doing a complicated instrument approach then it's probably best not to be high though, as the chances of fucking up will be a bit high. Although I'm sure the Cunts Against Aviation would have something to say about that, but they're always out to be a buzz kill.

Okay, I'll rephrase what I said.... I hope both my pilots are stoned....... that'll make me feel better when I'm next flying..... ;) NOT!

I was a commercial pilot for a few years. If my FO was peeled, I wouldn't have gotten off the ground. Period. There's levels of redundancy in aviation for a reason......
Instrument approaches are about 100 times easier to do, than controlling un-expected problems on the fly.

Keep the 'under the influence' people of the track. Simple.

[Katman]

Keep the 'under the influence' people of the track. Simple.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that people should be allowed on the track 'under the influence'.

As I've already said though, the presence of THC does not necessarily indicate impairment.

[nodrog]

this thread is full of rocket surgeons.

If you want to race - don't take drugs, its the rules.

I just had a full medical including drug test for a job interview. I didn't wank on about the flawed tests or my rights to smoke crack in my spare time, cos its the rules.

Doing something often results in not being able to do something else, its called life, some people should get one.

[scrivy]

this thread is full of rocket surgeons. Brain Scientists actually....
If you want to race - don't take drugs, its the rules.

I just had a full medical including drug test for a job interview. I didn't wank on about the flawed tests or my rights to smoke crack in my spare time, cos its the rules.

Doing something often results in not being able to do something else, its called life, some people should get one.

Did ya have to wank into a specimen pot......???:tugger::bleh::msn-wink:

[Stirts]

Did ya have to wank into a specimen pot......???:tugger::bleh::msn-wink:

It's my pink fortress thank you very much! :mad:

[SMOKEU]

this thread is full of rocket surgeons.

If you want to race - don't take drugs, its the rules.

I just had a full medical including drug test for a job interview. I didn't wank on about the flawed tests or my rights to smoke crack in my spare time, cos its the rules.

Doing something often results in not being able to do something else, its called life, some people should get one.

Out of interest, is it a "dangerous" job involving the transport industry, forestry or heavy machinery?

[Madness]

this thread is full of rocket surgeons.

If you want to race - don't take drugs, its the rules.

I just had a full medical including drug test for a job interview. I didn't wank on about the flawed tests or my rights to smoke crack in my spare time, cos its the rules.

Doing something often results in not being able to do something else, its called life, some people should get one.

I've heard it's getting a lot harder to get a job at Macca's. Good luck :niceone:

[Drew]

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that people should be allowed on the track 'under the influence'.Really? Because it fucken sure sounds like you and some other cunts are.


As I've already said though, the presence of THC does not necessarily indicate impairment.No, it doesn't. However, unless one of you stoner types can come up with a conclusive test to prove no impairment, don't smoke or don't race.

This isn't that complicated an issue, I am not surprised by some of the fucken morons wanking on about their right to smoke weed though.

Test away, and completely ban anyone found to have drugs in their system for a year. No matter what the drug is. Cunts be risking my life? Fuck that shit. You know most life insurance policies wont pay out if you die competing in motorsport aye?

[haydes55]

Really? Because it fucken sure sounds like you and some other cunts are.

No, it doesn't. However, unless one of you stoner types can come up with a conclusive test to prove no impairment, don't smoke or don't race.

This isn't that complicated an issue, I am not surprised by some of the fucken morons wanking on about their right to smoke weed though.

Test away, and completely ban anyone found to have drugs in their system for a year. No matter what the drug is. Cunts be risking my life? Fuck that shit. You know most life insurance policies wont pay out if you die competing in motorsport aye?








a health insurance guy actually came to 2 speedway meetings. Half the club signed up. They now no longer insure speedway people haha... Unless you never cancel your insurance.

No organisation, dedicated to rider safety should ever have to make allowances for illegal activities.

[Madness]

Fuck you cunts are thick.

https://dx5y3z85enc4t.cloudfront.net/540x540/fit/hostedimages/1379795520/606214.jpg

[Skunk]

You know most life insurance policies wont pay out if you die competing in motorsport aye?MNZ license does. Other than that I have nothing to say here. The IQ of some participants is too low.




If it ain't smokin' - it's broken.

[Drew]

Fuck you cunts are thick.
I've read pages and pages of your opinion on the matter. Enlighten me as to why I'm thick.

[Madness]

I've read pages and pages of your opinion on the matter. Enlighten me as to why I'm thick.

Read them again then ya thick cunt!

[Drew]

MNZ license does.



Will MNZ's cover match my own?

[Drew]

Read them again then ya thick cunt!I addressed your entire argument. Come up with a conclusive way to prove that the THC in a smokers system, is not impairing them.

"Thick cunt", that's very stern. You took my offensive words to heart then? Though they were directed at no one person? So you know you're a moron, and it upsets you?

Hmmm. Have you considered therapy for this obviously low self esteem? You might find you can cut back on the drugs a bit ya know, by feeling better about yourself. Just a thought.

Anyhoo. Back on topic aye. Drug testing at the track is a good thing. Fuck, I'm well aware that the chances of trace THC being in any way playing a part of a fatality are next to nil. Ya know what else I'm aware of? If there is a fatality, and the five oh find out there was THC in a competitors system and decide to audit the testing history by MNZ, and find it lacking....NO ONE WILL BE FUCKEN RACING ANYMORE.

So, while I might be thick, while Madness is trying to overcome his personal issues, and while Katman continues to push my buttons even when I'm aware of it, drug testing = good things. Smoking weed = bad things.

[nzspokes]

The science of cause and effect of THC and alcohol (being the two most common recreational drugs) is irrefutable.



Small point, I believe tobacco is the second after Alcohol and before weed. Could be wrong but read that on the Odyssey house website I think.

In fact just checked it and pasted below. They are talking about addiction.

Addiction (the facts)
What is addiction? Read More...

There is still debate about the exact definition of addiction, but there are some generally agreed indicators you should watch out for, such as any uncharacteristic behaviour along these lines:

Moods swings
Lethargy
Explosive outbursts
Minimal interaction with family
Trouble with the police
Changes in eating patterns
Frequent absences from school/work
Sudden changes of friends
Unexplained need for money
Declining school/work performance
Disappearing money and valuables
Impaired memory
Decrease in activities that may have previously been important to the person
Poor concentration
Withdrawing socially.

Who is most at risk? Read More...

In 2006, according to The New Zealand Mental Health Survey, 2006:
What are the most common drugs? Read More...

According to Alcohol Drug Association New Zealand....

Alcohol is the most commonly used drug in New Zealand. Binge drinking has been defined as five or more standard drinks on any one occasion for 12-17 year olds and seven or more standard drinks for adults over 18.
Tobacco is the second most common drug. Its use is highest among the 25-34 age group, and among Maori (49.2% of Maori smoke) and Pacific people (35.2%).
Cannabis comes in third place and is the country’s most widely used illegal drug. About half of New Zealanders try it at some time in their lives and about 30% do so before the age of 15.
Legal Highs, 'Herbal' Highs, or Party Pills have become the preferred drugs of many young people. During 2003, over 1.5 million party pill capsules were manufactured in New Zealand.
Ecstasy and MDMA use has increased in recent years. In 2001, 5.4% of people surveyed had tried ecstasy compared with 3% in 1998. Larger seizures of MDMA since 2000 indicates its use is on the increase too.
‘P’, methamphetamine, and amphetamine use has also increased in recent years. Now about one in five people presenting for drug treatment cite some form of amphetamine, alone or in combination with other drugs, as their main substance use problem.
Opiates such as heroin, home-bake, morphine, and poppies account for a small percentage of drug use in New Zealand.

For more information, click here.
What can I do if I think someone I know
is addicted? Read More...

If you’re worried that someone you know has a substance use or gambling problem, here are some initial steps you can take:

Talk about your concerns with a drug and alcohol professional, other concerned family members, or friends.
Find out what resources and support services are available.
Choose an appropriate time to talk with the person concerned and explain how you feel about what is going on.
Negotiate a set of guidelines for their behaviour with agreed consequences if the guidelines are broken.
Support and encourage positive behaviour.
Look after yourself – don’t allow yourself to become overburdened by the person’s problem.
Ensure the physical safety of yourself and any children involved.

[Madness]

I addressed your entire argument. Come up with a conclusive way to prove that the THC in a smokers system, is not impairing them.

So you're suggesting a "guilty until proven innocent approach" is taken then?


"Thick cunt", that's very stern. You took my offensive words to heart then? Though they were directed at no one person? So you know you're a moron, and it upsets you?

Hmmm. Have you considered therapy for this obviously low self esteem? You might find you can cut back on the drugs a bit ya know, by feeling better about yourself. Just a thought.

Nah, I just reckon you're a thick cunt. Stop trying to seem intelligent, it isn't working.


Anyhoo. Back on topic aye. Drug testing at the track is a good thing. Fuck, I'm well aware that the chances of trace THC being in any way playing a part of a fatality are next to nil. Ya know what else I'm aware of? If there is a fatality, and the five oh find out there was THC in a competitors system and decide to audit the testing history by MNZ, and find it lacking....NO ONE WILL BE FUCKEN RACING ANYMORE.

Like there's no more hot-air-ballooning any more? Failed argument & ever so slightly over-dramatic. Par for the course for you lot though, innit?

[nzspokes]

drug testing = good things. Smoking weed = bad things.

For bike racing I believe it is very important. Nobody want to lose a loved one to an "impaired" person. Be it through sport or work.

Do you want the mechanic on your car to have had a big night before he works on your car? :no:

[Drew]

So you're suggesting a "guilty until proven innocent approach" is taken then?Not at all. Guilt is proven by the detection of an illegal substance in the testees (hehehe, I been waiting to drop that wee gem) system. What's there that MNZ need to prove after that?





Nah, I just reckon you're a thick cunt. Stop trying to seem intelligent, it isn't working.Far from it. I'm just good old fashioned poking fun at you. It's easy ya see, and since I can be a bit of a bully at times, it amuses me.





Like there's no more hot-air-ballooning any more? Failed argument & ever so slightly over-dramatic. Par for the course for you lot though, innit?You're suggesting that given the recent years and four (five if that bucket meet was an MNZ event) deaths, MNZ aren't looked at with a bloody microscope. Think about that if you can fight through the haze for just a moment.

I don't give a rats arse if anyone does drugs. Christ knows I do. But if someone is stupid enough not to give it a rest a while before they go racing, then they are just dumb enough that I wouldn't want them anywhere near me on the track.

[Drew]

For bike racing I believe it is very important. Nobody want to lose a loved one to an "impaired" person. Be it through sport or work.

Do you want the mechanic on your car to have had a big night before he works on your car? :no:If I were to pay for a car or bike to be fixed, (and I'd need to be on my death bed before I did), I would expect that the reason I am paying such a premium is that the employer has drug and alcohol policies in place to protect me.

[Madness]

drug testing = good things. Indeterminate testing methods = bad things.

Fixed it for ya.

[Madness]

I don't give a rats arse if anyone does drugs. Christ knows I do. But if someone is stupid enough not to give it a rest a while before they go racing, then they are just dumb enough that I wouldn't want them anywhere near me on the track.

Best you give it a rest for two whole months before your next drug-tested race meet then. Otherwise it's Armageddon!


Not at all. Guilt is proven by the detection of an illegal substance in the testees (hehehe, I been waiting to drop that wee gem) system. What's there that MNZ need to prove after that?

If that was "right" then wouldn't the popo & the "justice" system be taking the same approach in upholding the law (seeing as it's their job to uphold the law)? Yeah, they probably would, but they don't. That's because is aint right.

[Drew]

Fixed it for ya.Are you losing focus? That's a poor effort.

Whether or not the test is conclusive in determining if someone is 'under the influence', is moot.

Participants are warned they may be tested for drugs. They have, no less, agreed in a formal contract NOT to be under the influence at the race track. That there is no test for sobriety, but only for presence is not MNZs fault or problem.

[Drew]

Best you give it a rest for two whole months before your next drug-tested race meet then. Otherwise it's Armageddon!I don't smoke weed. Can't handle the stuff.

[nzspokes]

Best you give it a rest for two whole months . Otherwise it's Addiction!

Fixed for ya.

[Akzle]

Do you want the mechanic on your car to have had a big night before he works on your car? :no:

I often do... Occasionally i smoke joints while rebuilding brakes and shit.

Total number of times ive died to date while, or because of, being high =0

[Madness]

Are you losing focus? That's a poor effort.

Far from it. In fact this is in keeping with my previous posts in this thread, just very short & no big words, just for you & 'spokes.


Whether or not the test is conclusive in determining if someone is 'under the influence', is moot.

Participants are warned they may be tested for drugs. They have, no less, agreed in a formal contract NOT to be under the influence at the race track. That there is no test for sobriety, but only for presence is not MNZs fault or problem.

Yeah, nah. You say that participants have agreed to not be under the influence, yet it's fine that they then be subjected to a test method that cannot prove whether or not they are under the influence. Smells like a giant pile of steaming bullshit to me.

That logic would have people incarcerated for crimes they didn't commit. Oh, wait :facepalm:

[skippa1]

I often do... Occasionally i smoke joints while rebuilding brakes and shit.

Total number of times ive died to date while, or because of, being high =0

Last I heard your bike didn't even move......why rebuild the brakes.......and doesn't matter if it doesn't stop when it doesn't go...

[Drew]

Far from it. In fact this is in keeping with my previous posts in this thread, just very short & no big words, just for you & 'spokes.



Yeah, nah. You say that participants have agreed to not be under the influence, yet it's fine that they then be subjected to a test method that cannot prove whether or not they are under the influence. Smells like a giant pile of steaming bullshit to me.
So, you don't have a problem with MNZ testing for racers being under the influence. I'm glad we both agree that there's nothing wrong with it.

The only thing left then, why should the governing body of the sport be responsible of finding a way to tell if a participant is or is not under the influence?

The test is not actually suited to answer the question. This is a given. I will say it along side you till the cows come home if you like. Bring a guitar and we'll have a fucken sing along. I'll write the words down so you don't forget them. But since the activity itself is not legal, you don't have an argument at all I'm afraid. Our laws say that no, you don't have the right to do it. Be you under the influence at race time or not.

[Katman]

No, it doesn't. However, unless one of you stoner types can come up with a conclusive test to prove no impairment, don't smoke or don't race.


Come now Drew, you know the closest I'd come to a track is standing beside it yelling at you lot to slow down just a bit.

[Madness]

So, you don't have a problem with MNZ testing for racers being under the influence. I'm glad we both agree that there's nothing wrong with it.

See, you're not such a thick cunt, just extremely slow or lacking in comprehension skills.


The only thing left then, why should the governing body of the sport be responsible of finding a way to tell if a participant is or is not under the influence?

Because rather than it being moot, as you suggested earlier, "impairment" is the entire crux of the situation. Indeterminate testing methods serve nobody or nothing, other than lining the pockets of the cunts at NZDDA.


The test is not actually suited to answer the question. This is a given.

So get a test that answers the question then.


I will say it along side you till the cows come home if you like. Bring a guitar and we'll have a fucken sing along. I'll write the words down so you don't forget them.

Alan might get jealous.


But since the activity itself is not legal, you don't have an argument at all I'm afraid. Our laws say that no, you don't have the right to do it. Be you under the influence at race time or not.

Again, when did MNZ become assigned with upholding the laws of this country? What's next, check racers criminal records? Check for outstanding fines before you're allowed in pit lane? Maybe you'd like them to check the WOF & rego of all the cars in the carpark too because we all know that unregistered vehicles can kill.

[Drew]

Come now Drew, you know the closest I'd come to a track is standing beside it yelling at you lot to slow down just a bit.Yell at the other guys to slow down a bit, we ran mid to rear of the pack last time out.


See, you're not such a thick cunt, just extremely slow or lacking in comprehension skills.I fully understood you from your first post. You on the other hand are deliberately (I think) ignoring my point.





Because rather than it being moot, as you suggested earlier, "impairment" is the entire crux of the situation. Indeterminate testing methods serve nobody or nothing, other than lining the pockets of the cunts at NZDDA.It covers the collective arse of MNZ too.





So get a test that answers the question then.You do it. I'm fine with the testing as it is.





Alan might get jealous.We have a new sing along song for every trip. He'll be cool with it.





Again, when did MNZ become assigned with upholding the laws of this country? What's next, check racers criminal records? Check for outstanding fines before you're allowed in pit lane? Maybe you'd like them to check the WOF & rego of all the cars in the carpark too because we all know that unregistered vehicles can kill.They are required by the terms of their insurer I think you'll find, to do what they can to ensure as safe an environment as possible. That they or their members don't agree with a certain aspect of the perceived safety is again, moot when it boils down to the legal system.

I don't agree that safety boots make me safer on a building site. But don't wear them, and I don't work.

[Akzle]

Last I heard your bike didn't even move......why rebuild the brakes.......and doesn't matter if it doesn't stop when it doesn't go...

:scratch:
you high bro?

Was talkn bout cars...

[Madness]

You do it. I'm fine with the testing as it is.

Yeah, nah. I have no vested interest in this subject matter either, never been on a race track & prolly never will. It's the internets, where everyone has an opinion. It's still bullshit though & I feel sad for the guys who race that might enjoy the occasional puff yet take responsibility for their actions & abstain a few days prior.

Cannabis will be decriminalised in this country soon enough & I'll laugh at all the doomsdayers. What a waste of fucking time & money. Good thing all you racers are fucking loaded, innit?

[skippa1]

:scratch:
you high bro?

Was talkn bout cars...
You gotta car?

[Drew]

Yeah, nah. I have no vested interest in this subject matter either, never been on a race track & prolly never will. It's the internets, where everyone has an opinion. It's still bullshit though & I feel sad for the guys who race that might enjoy the occasional puff yet take responsibility for their actions & abstain a few days prior.

Cannabis will be decriminalised in this country soon enough & I'll laugh at all the doomsdayers. What a waste of fucking time & money. Good thing all you racers are fucking loaded, innit?This raises an interesting point. Before it ever could be decriminalised, a test for 'influence' would need to be created. Because of how stupidly long the stuff takes to leave a smokers system, lisence numbers would plummet...Not that that's a bad thing.

So I wouldn't start growing a crop just yet fella.

Yeah, we're rich as all fuck! It's why we mostly get to have real drugs, and not the pesants crap like you smoke.


You gotta car?
It's more of a mobile shanty.

[Madness]

This raises an interesting point. Before it ever could be decriminalised, a test for 'influence' would need to be created. Because of how stupidly long the stuff takes to leave a smokers system, lisence numbers would plummet...Not that that's a bad thing.

So I wouldn't start growing a crop just yet fella.

Yeah, we're rich as all fuck! It's why we mostly get to have real drugs, and not the pesants crap like you smoke.

Fuck, you're more deluded than I realised. You seriously believe that any change to the legal classification of Cannabis use would revolve around the development of a test for impairment? News-flash! The popo have the legal ability to conduct road-side drug impairment tests right now, have done for several years. It doesn't involve any piss tests though as these have been identified to be inconclusive to show actual impairment. The Aussies have mouth swab tests at road-side but I'm picking the current mass media brainwash campaign needs to run it's course a bit longer before any political party is prepared to introduce this here.

Peasants crap? Did I sell you some cabbage at some point? Good fucking job, hope you choked on it.

I trust you'll be lining up for a test next time you're at the track then?

[Drew]

Fuck, you're more deluded than I realised. You seriously believe that any change to the legal classification of Cannabis use would revolve around the development of a test for impairment? News-flash! The popo have the legal ability to conduct road-side drug impairment tests right now, have done for several years. It doesn't involve any piss tests though as these have been identified to be inconclusive to show actual impairment. The Aussies have mouth swab tests at road-side but I'm picking the current mass media brainwash campaign needs to run it's course a bit longer before any political party is prepared to introduce this here.

Peasants crap? Did I sell you some cabbage at some point? Good fucking job, hope you choked on it.

I trust you'll be lining up for a test next time you're at the track then?
You're a bit of a scone doer, aren't ya 'Smokey'?

I don't recall saying it would revolve around the testing thereof. I said I thought it was interesting to me that levels would need to be set with accurate measuring devices.

[Madness]

I don't recall saying it would revolve around the testing thereof. I said I thought it was interesting to me that levels would need to be set with accurate measuring devices.

Put the pipe down & take that cock out of your mouth.


Before it ever could be decriminalised, a test for 'influence' would need to be created.

[Akzle]

You gotta car?

3 or 4, hactually.

[Billy]

For someone who claims to get 'A' grades in exams you dont come across as very smart!!

Some of us see the reults of drug abuse every day and have to work at cleaning the mess up they have made of themselves, the devastation wrought on thier families........and their victimes.

But hey its not the drugs fault eh its just a natural plant what harm can it do :brick:

As I expected from someone in your line of employment,You are absolutely spot on,Anybody with any doubt should google seratonin overload and thats just one example

[Drew]

Put the pipe down & take that cock out of your mouth.My meaning, as anyone with half a brain would have understood, was simply that it is just one more thing that will need to be sorted out before weed can become legal.

The presence of THC in someone's system, might not be relative to how much of an influence it's having. So standards need to be set with regard to levels...Hmmm, who's going to pay for that research I wonder? Why should I as a tax payer, fund research into something so that a minority want?

I have and had nothing but a cup of coffee in my mouth...except maybe the words you continue to try and put there for me.

You are a fail in terms of argument fodder. I think I'll save my time for a worthy adversary next time. That you don't even race should have put me off, but I was after a shit fight after all and thought you could oblige.

[scrivy]

You are a fail in terms of argument fodder. I think I'll save my time for a worthy adversary next time. That you don't even race should have put me off, but I was after a shit fight after all and thought you could oblige.
PUSSY......


Yell at the other guys to slow down a bit, we ran mid to rear of the pack last time out.
Only 'cause you're used to hanging around the back of the toilets...... and like perving on Berts arse.....

:yes::whistle:
:corn:

[Madness]

You are a fail in terms of argument fodder. I think I'll save my time for a worthy adversary next time. That you don't even race should have put me off, but I was after a shit fight after all and thought you could oblige.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. That & the fact that you're full of shit.

[jonbuoy]

Do you take Tramadol Madness ?
This thread got me thinking, I realise that a lot of my time racing I was taking things like Pethadeine ! and always codeine in some form.
In my later years starting at age about 54 I had a pain manager bloke at Bowen Hospital.(type that keeps you alive during operations).
Anyway after trying lots of stuff I was on morphine for two years (quite a bit) Riding my K6 Thou,I realised I wasn't sharp at all and decided to take myself off it.
For the last few years I manage on Tramadol and codeine, lots of it !But I feel much safer than with the Morph.
But what I'm getting at is my resistance to drugs is very high, love to see someone test me and judge my fitness to drive ??????

In my limited experience if your in a lot of pain and you take strong pain killers you don't feel high just less pain. If your not in much pain and you take pain killers you get a high.

[Madness]

Do you take Tramadol Madness ?

Nope. You'll be hard-pressed to get me to take an asprin.


But what I'm getting at is my resistance to drugs is very high, love to see someone test me and judge my fitness to drive ??????

Ed's your man, he's a fucking expert on the subject. Apparently, according to Ed, you can eat a metric fuck-ton of Tramadol & you're sweet but one puff of a Marijuana cigarette & the wheels will fall off your motorsickle & the sky will fall soon after. Maybe MNZ could appoint Ed as their chief drug-tester, now there's an idea! Grubber could be his deputy as we all know he can spot a Cannabis user from 500 metres away in the dark.

[roogazza]

In my limited experience if your in a lot of pain and you take strong pain killers you don't feel high just less pain. If your not in much pain and you take pain killers you get a high.
Exactly, that's how it is, just less pain.

[bluninja]

Nope. You'll be hard-pressed to get me to take an asprin.



Ed's your man, he's a fucking expert on the subject. Apparently, according to Ed, you can eat a metric fuck-ton of Tramadol & you're sweet but one puff of a Marijuana cigarette & the wheels will fall off your motorsickle & the sky will fall soon after. Maybe MNZ could appoint Ed as their chief drug-tester, now there's an idea! Grubber could be his deputy as we all know he can spot a Cannabis user from 500 metres away in the dark.

Is that cos their torches are powered by Shorai batteries ? :bleh:

[Akzle]

In my limited experience if your in a lot of pain and you take strong pain killers you don't feel high just less pain. If your not in much pain and you take pain killers you get a high.

depends. What hes talking about are opiates (poppys, basically. And an alkaloid, as nicotine, and datura)
every drug will affect every body differently. One of the fairly universal functions of opiates is analgesia. I can chew a half dozen codeine and function, but you could kick me in the balls and if i didnt see it, i probably wouldnt feel it. There is no ' high' asides from the abscence of the low (the chronic pain and black pit that is my existence.)
BUT i can still recreationally use opium, heroin.

I would also welcome the opportunity to be ABILITY(/impairment) tested while under 'the influence', i reckon the results would surprise the hell out of the anti-weed/eccy/heroin/coke/etcetera brigade, and theyd be left with only the tired old 'but its illegal' argumen

[Drew]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. That & the fact that you're full of shit.By all means then arse hat, let the shit fly.

Come up with something worthy of arguing with, and I'm your Huckleberry.

Till now you just come across as a tool who likes drugs, and thinks for some reason that you have a right to take as much as you like.

[scrivy]

By all means then arse hat, let the shit fly.

Come up with something worthy of arguing with, and I'm your Huckleberry.

Till now you just come across as a tool who likes drugs, and thinks for some reason that you have a right to take as much as you like.

:corn:

A cresent or spanner??

[Drew]

:corn:

A cresent or spanner??
That mother fucker....is a podger.

[nodrog]

Did ya have to wank into a specimen pot......???:tugger::bleh::msn-wink:

I didn't have to, I offered.


Out of interest, is it a "dangerous" job involving the transport industry, forestry or heavy machinery?

nope.


I've heard it's getting a lot harder to get a job at Macca's. Good luck :niceone:

Cant you hook me up?

[Madness]

By all means then arse hat, let the shit fly.

Come up with something worthy of arguing with, and I'm your Huckleberry.

Till now you just come across as a tool who likes drugs, and thinks for some reason that you have a right to take as much as you like.

:tugger:

Come on Drew, everyone knows drugs are illegal and I'm clearly not suggesting anyone has the right to get shit-faced prior to going racing. I simply disagree with the implementation of substandard testing methods in regards to Cannabis. How would the non-smoking alcohol users like it if they were in a similar situation and the test methods being used only showed a trace or a presence of alcohol but couldn't determine impairment?

The point of testing for drugs in any sport should be restricted to reducing danger & eliminating unfair competition. In the case of Cannabis where the presence of THC can remain in the human body weeks after any effects have gone completely, it becomes no longer about reducing danger or eliminating unfair competition but about testing for lifestyle choice.

What's next? Testing for Jews & Homos? You'll be fucked then.

[Madness]

Cant you hook me up?

Are you up to it?

[nodrog]

Are you up to it?

not really, it all looks abit hard. I hope they still have pictures of the burgers on the till.

[Drew]

:tugger:

Come on Drew, everyone knows drugs are illegal and I'm clearly not suggesting anyone has the right to get shit-faced prior to going racing. I simply disagree with the implementation of substandard testing methods in regards to Cannabis. How would the non-smoking alcohol users like it if they were in a similar situation and the test methods being used only showed a trace or a presence of alcohol but couldn't determine impairment?

The point of testing for drugs in any sport should be restricted to reducing danger & eliminating unfair competition. In the case of Cannabis where the presence of THC can remain in the human body weeks after any effects have gone completely, it becomes no longer about reducing danger or eliminating unfair competition but about testing for lifestyle choice. What's next? Testing for Jews & Homos? You'll be fucked then.The legal limit for alcohol while driving is 0.08 or some such. (I might have the decimal in the wrong place). You get sent home from the track however, at one eight of that if what I've read is correct.

Ya know, kinda trace like.

"Eliminating unfair competition"? You are retarded eh? Like, you can legitimately run in the special olympics?

It's about safety in most cases, not performance ya moron. I have yet to find any drug that would help my lap times...And I've tried a lot!

[Katman]

It's about safety in most cases, not performance ya moron. I have yet to find any drug that would help my lap times...And I've tried a lot!

You should try reading a little more carefully Drew.

[Madness]

The legal limit for alcohol while driving is 0.08 or some such. (I might have the decimal in the wrong place). You get sent home from the track however, at one eight of that if what I've read is correct.

Ya know, kinda trace like.

Sure, but that trace of alcohol could not be the result of alcohol consumption some 5-6 weeks prior, could it Einstein?


"Eliminating unfair competition"? You are retarded eh? Like, you can legitimately run in the special olympics?

It's about safety in most cases, not performance ya moron. I have yet to find any drug that would help my lap times...And I've tried a lot!

Come on Drew, think a little. I typed "Drug testing in any sport" - I'm not for a moment suggesting that Cannabis could be used as a performance enhancing substance in motorcycle racing (or any other sport that comes to mind, other than pie-eating).

You really are like a 12-year old sometimes.

[SMOKEU]

nope.


Then why did you agree to a drug test in the first place? Unless there's some legal bullshit reason for it, I would just say "no" to drug testing right from the start as it has nothing to do with your employer. Once in a job interview I got asked if I would take a drug test, to which I promptly said "no", and when questioned as to why, I simply stated that my personal and professional life are separate and I shouldn't be subjected to any such testing. I got the job, and nothing was ever mentioned about it again.




It's about safety in most cases, not performance ya moron. I have yet to find any drug that would help my lap times...And I've tried a lot!

If anything, being under the influence of cannabis during a race will likely be detrimental to the performance of the rider, and if the purpose of racing is to win, then I doubt any serious racer would race high if they know it's probably going to make them slower.

[Katman]

If anything, being under the influence of cannabis during a race will likely be detrimental to the performance of the rider.....

There has been a notable exception to that rule in recent years though.

[Drew]

Sure, but that trace of alcohol could not be the result of alcohol consumption some 5-6 weeks prior, could it Einstein?So? The answer is to stop smoking weed at least five weeks before a race, or face the possibility of being sent home.

It's not that difficult to grasp. It all circles back to the same thing. If a test for impairment is not available, then users and not the organisers are responsible for not showing traces.




Come on Drew, think a little. I typed "Drug testing in any sport" - I'm not for a moment suggesting that Cannabis could be used as a performance enhancing substance in motorcycle racing (or any other sport that comes to mind, other than pie-eating).I know you're not suggesting weed would help a racer. But since there isn't any point to bringing that up at all, I figured I would answer it relative to this topic.




You really are like a 12-year old sometimes.YOU ARE.

[Drew]

There has been a notable exception to that rule in recent years though.An interesting statement. Please elaborate for those of us not in the know.

[Madness]

So? The answer is to stop smoking weed at least five weeks before a race, or face the possibility of being sent home.

It's not that difficult to grasp. It all circles back to the same thing. If a test for impairment is not available, then users and not the organisers are responsible for not showing traces.

But such tests, although not conclusive and far from perfect, are available apparently but are probably not going to be used. You should read better.


This is causing drama on fb. SNZ is now drug testing by taking urine samples. People are complaining because they can't get stoned the week before a race meeting.

Do you think it's fair to drug test people who are operating bikes which are capable of killing and harming people?

Side note, mouth swabs have been offered as an alternative to check if any drugs have been taken recently, but will a swab show drugs taken through injection, snorting or up the bum? And should SNZ give a shit if the drugs were taken recently or is any indication of drugs enough to justify a ban?



I know you're not suggesting weed would help a racer. But since there isn't any point to bringing that up at all, I figured I would answer it relative to this topic.

There is a point in bringing this up, it's just that you're too simple to see it, obviously.

[Drew]

But such tests, although not conclusive, are probably not going to be used. You should read better.I don't need to read any better. You haven't changed anything except sentence structure in the whole thread. Read one, read 'em all.







There is a point in bringing this up, it's just that you're too simple to see it, obviously.Oh yeah, make out there's a hidden meaning in the dribble you type and blame it on someone else just not getting it.

You're smarter...but only by half ball bag. Jog on.

[Madness]

I don't need to read any better. You haven't changed anything except sentence structure in the whole thread. Read one, read 'em all.

Always remember to read the OP Drew, simple stuff really. Nothing hidden in my posts at all. The only thing hidden in this thread is you're intellect.

[Drew]

Always remember to read the OP Drew, simple stuff really.That's not the context, that our back and fourth is based on.

I admit to having misread the OP and thought this was about real racing, but I don't see a flaw in my argument yet.

[Madness]

I admit to having misread the OP and thought this was about real racing, but I don't see a flaw in my argument yet.

Keep looking.


That's not the context, that our back and fourth is based on.

Yes it is. You were just going off half-cocked like a 12-year old doing a Rambo impersonation without having understood the discussion topic properly.

[scrivy]

Testing for Jews & Homos? You'll be fucked then.

Drews a Jew too???? :lol:

[Drew]

Keep looking.That's a bit vague chief...But I think that's kind of the purpose of the statement.

Drugs taken show up in a competitors system. Competitor goes home. End of.

"Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh, I took the drugs ages ago"!

"Prove it fucktard".

"Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh, I can't prove it because other people wont pay for the kind of testing that would make it possible".

Ya get it yet 'blaze'?

[Madness]

That's a bit vague chief...But I think that's kind of the purpose of the statement.

Drugs taken show up in a competitors system. Competitor goes home. End of.

"Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh, I took the drugs ages ago"!

"Prove it fucktard".

"Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh, I can't prove it because other people wont pay for the kind of testing that would make it possible".

Ya get it yet 'blaze'?

Your mum should have called you Jimmy instead, coz you're a bit special aren't you?

Hayden has said there are swab tests available that can determine more recent use as opposed to more historic use. The reasoning behind the apparent preference to overlook this option doesn't appear to be down to cost, rather a discriminatory attitude towards Cannabis users. If it's truly about safety use the swab tests, if this is the best that is available to determine actual likely impairment. It's an ethics debate Drew, something obviously beyond your comprehension. Why don't you go & find a thread with some muppet on a GN250 with a misfire or summat, "blaze" them with your prowess?

[Katman]

An interesting statement. Please elaborate for those of us not in the know.

I'll leave you to do the detective work Drew.

[ellipsis]

...rules is rules...we are bound by the fucking things in just about all areas of life...the fact that some people's first breathe of oxygen when they open their eyes in the morning is enough to kick their brain dead actions into life without any need of adding mind altering drugs should be tested for also...that would reduce the numbers involved in any activity by a big percentage...all we need is an agency to get the contract to test and create the numbers for how much oxygen is too much...

[scrivy]

...rules is rules...we are bound by the fucking things in just about all areas of life...the fact that some people's first breathe of oxygen when they open their eyes in the morning is enough to kick their brain dead actions into life without any need of adding mind altering drugs should be tested for also...that would reduce the numbers involved in any activity by a big percentage...all we need is an agency to get the contract to test and create the numbers for how much oxygen is too much...

:woohoo: We have a winner!!!

[SMOKEU]

So? The answer is to stop smoking weed at least five weeks before a race, or face the possibility of being sent home.

It's not that difficult to grasp. It all circles back to the same thing. If a test for impairment is not available, then users and not the organisers are responsible for not showing traces.


It's still not fair or just to reprimand someone when there is no conclusive evidence to prove that the user is under the influence. Circumstantial evidence is just that; circumstantial. These sorts of accusations can have serious consequences, and should not be taken lightly. If there really is a well proven technology that can accurately determine whether or not a user is currently under the influence of cannabis, then these tests can be carried out immediately before the race commences, otherwise, the rider should be assumed to be proved innocent until proven guilty.

A racer could easily consume synthetic cannabis products, many of which can successfully circumvent common drug tests for cannabis.

[jellywrestler]

3 or 4, hactually.

the drugs must have got to you if you can't even remember whether it's 3 or 4 methinks..........

[Drew]

Your mum should have called you Jimmy instead, coz you're a bit special aren't you?

Hayden has said there are swab tests available that can determine more recent use as opposed to more historic use. The reasoning behind the apparent preference to overlook this option doesn't appear to be down to cost, rather a discriminatory attitude towards Cannabis users. If it's truly about safety use the swab tests, if this is the best that is available to determine actual likely impairment. It's an ethics debate Drew, something obviously beyond your comprehension. Why don't you go & find a thread with some muppet on a GN250 with a misfire or summat, "blaze" them with your prowess?"Discriminatory attitude toward cannabis users". You have a problem with MY fucken ethics or understanding thereof, because people breaking the law are being discriminated against? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA. That right there you bloody idiot, is JENGA mutha fucker.:facepalm:

Thanks for playing, you fucken lose.:bye:

Jesus titty fucking christ, but some cunts just don't know when they're beaten.


I'll leave you to do the detective work Drew.At least give me the class they raced in, so I know where to start asking...Wouldn't it be funny if the first person I asked said. "Me".

[jellywrestler]

At least give me the class they raced in, so I know where to start asking...Wouldn't it be funny if the first person I asked said. "Me".

get back to the gossip column in the womans day Drewpy, it's old news and he's not racing these days...

[Drew]

get back to the gossip column in the womans day Drewpy, it's old news and he's not racing these days...I'm always the last to know this sort of stuff.

Do people not tell me, because the first person I'd then talk to about it would be the person being talked about?

[Madness]

Jesus titty fucking christ, but some cunts just don't know when they're beaten.

That's the second thing you've said in this thread that I agree with. The rest of it's pretty pathetic but there's no surprises there. It's a pity you've got nothing to further this discussion with really, ho-hum.

[Drew]

That's the second thing you've said in this thread that I agree with. The rest of it's pretty pathetic but there's no surprises there. It's a pity you've got nothing to further this discussion with really, ho-hum.

You're gonna chalk having no point at all, and arguing that the rights of criminals are to be upheld over others, as a win?

You should get tested man. If you are fit, you could bring home gold at the special Olympics!

[Madness]

You're gonna chalk having no point at all, and arguing that the rights of criminals are to be upheld over others, as a win?

You should get tested man. If you are fit, you could bring home gold at the special Olympics!

If you think that my suggestion that it is unethical to subject racers to disciplinary action over a positive THC test that could have resulted from ingesting the substance some 5 or 6 weeks prior, whilst more subjective testing methods are available and more likely to identify recent use, therefore a heightened risk being present as a result of actual Cannabis "impairment", is somehow related in any way to diminishing the rights of a third party, then you sir, are a fuckwit.

[Drew]

If you think that my suggestion that it is unethical to subject racers to disciplinary action over a positive THC test that could have resulted from ingesting the substance some 5 or 6 weeks prior, whilst more subjective testing methods are available and more likely to identify recent use, therefore a heightened risk being present as a result of actual Cannabis "impairment", is somehow related in any way to diminishing the rights of a third party, then you sir, are a fuckwit.So there's a conclusive test for impairment, from THC?

[Madness]

So there's a conclusive test for impairment, from THC?

The popo here prosecute based on a roadside physical test for impairment that doesn't involve the taking of bodily samples (tippy-toe ten paces, watch the moving finger, etc) whilst the Australian popos use the swab tests that were mentioned in the OP. I'm not aware of any law enforcement agencies who insist on roadside piss-tests, probably because the science is fundamentally flawed and to prosecute on such testing would be unethical.

You know, I reckon that if some of you drama queens actually took the time to read posts properly, threads such as this one would probably die before they hit page 3. Still, thanks for the entertainment.

[malcy25]

Sure, but that trace of alcohol could not be the result of alcohol consumption some 5-6 weeks prior, could it Einstein?





True, but the THC reading could be a result of a lighting a cleansack full an hour ago too. Simple really, any reading, bye bye.

None of the testing is about impairment testing, it's an objective test, yes/no, is/isn't on the basis of there being no ability to determine how long ago and what influence. So any reading could be a precursor or indicator of impairment.

I'm a long time racer any testing protocol which weeds this shit out is fine by me.

Personally, I think drugs are for douches trying to hide from something called life.

[Madness]

True, but the THC reading could be a result of a lighting a cleansack full an hour ago too. Simple really, any reading, bye bye.

None of the testing is about impairment testing, it's an objective test, yes/no, is/isn't on the basis of there being no ability to determine how long ago and what influence. So any reading could be a precursor or indicator of impairment.

A swab test isn't going to flag yes for consumption that occurred weeks prior, therefore making it a more objective test if the purpose of testing is truly about safety. Overlooking this option and opting for the napalm approach based purely on personal opinions towards Cannabis use is unethical, end of story. If you seriously think that anyone is likely to be lining up on a racetrack an hour after smoking "a cleansack full" of Cannabis then maybe it's you who is on drugs?


I'm a long time racer any testing protocol which weeds this shit out is fine by me.

Personally, I think drugs are for douches trying to hide from something called life.

Opinions are like arseholes and you & Drew are entitled to yours, no matter how narrow-minded they may be. If being a member of SNZ, MNZ or any other amateur sport body involves that body having a say in what you choose to do in the privacy of your own home whilst not affecting anybody else, I say fuck that.

[lukemillar]

At the end of the day, it doesn't actually matter whether someone is impaired or not. Any drug use compromises the integrity of the sport. period. Therefore any governing body MUST take a zero tolerance stance on drug use. What prospective sponsor wants to associate their product/business with a sport that says "it's ok for competitors to take drugs, just don't do it too close to the event" ?

[nodrog]

Then why did you agree to a drug test in the first place? .....

Um, because it is the rules and it is what is required if I wish to work there.

Last time I looked, taking drugs is still illegal. If a person was caught and convicted, that conviction would stand 24/7 not just in the employee's own personal time. That conviction would restrict travel to other countries for work, etc. Why should an employer risk investing time and resources in somebody that could potentially become useless to them. The test isn't solely based on whether you will be impaired while at work.

Yeah its pretty shitty, and illegal substances and me used to be bestest friends. And I couldn't give a shit what other people do in their spare time. But I have learnt, in order to do something I wish to do (whether it be racing or employment) something else has to be given up.

So if you want to race, be willing to take a drug/alcohol test without whinging about it.

Its pretty simple really.

You cant have your coke and eat it.

[Drew]

The popo here prosecute based on a roadside physical test for impairment that doesn't involve the taking of bodily samples (tippy-toe ten paces, watch the moving finger, etc) whilst the Australian popos use the swab tests that were mentioned in the OP. I'm not aware of any law enforcement agencies who insist on roadside piss-tests, probably because the science is fundamentally flawed and to prosecute on such testing would be unethical.

You know, I reckon that if some of you drama queens actually took the time to read posts properly, threads such as this one would probably die before they hit page 3. Still, thanks for the entertainment.

You haven't actually answered my question. I know why you haven't of course.

The swap test still shows up traces whether a person is under the influence or not. It does not give a level. Pissed testing gives a level, and it still doesn't have relevance to influence.

Even if they did. There is no standard for what level is actually defined as influence.

So you, condescending fucking moron, tell me again how thick you think I am because your right to smoke drugs isn't being allowed for in MY sport.

[skippa1]

Um, because it is the rules and it is what is required if I wish to work there.

Last time I looked, taking drugs is still illegal. If a person was caught and convicted, that conviction would stand 24/7 not just in the employee's own personal time. That conviction would restrict travel to other countries for work, etc. Why should an employer risk investing time and resources in somebody that could potentially become useless to them. The test isn't solely based on whether you will be impaired while at work.

Yeah its pretty shitty, and illegal substances and me used to be bestest friends. And I couldn't give a shit what other people do in their spare time. But I have learnt, in order to do something I wish to do (whether it be racing or employment) something else has to be given up.

So if you want to race, be willing to take a drug/alcohol test without whinging about it.

Its pretty simple really.

You cant have your coke and eat it.

You summed that up very elloqunitly

[Madness]

At the end of the day, it doesn't actually matter whether someone is impaired or not. Any drug use compromises the integrity of the sport...

Bullshit. It's been happening for decades already, how has the sport been compromised at all?

[Madness]

You haven't actually answered my question. I know why you haven't of course.

The swap test still shows up traces whether a person is under the influence or not. It does not give a level. Pissed testing gives a level, and it still doesn't have relevance to influence.

Even if they did. There is no standard for what level is actually defined as influence.

So you, condescending fucking moron, tell me again how thick you think I am because your right to smoke drugs isn't being allowed for in MY sport.

My internet is down today & I'm not about to waste mobile data on the likes of an ignorant cunt such as yourself beyond this post. Carry on like the petulant child that you so clearly are & have a nice day!

[jellywrestler]

My internet is down today & I'm not about to waste mobile data on the likes of an ignorant cunt such as yourself beyond this post. Carry on like the petulant children that you so clearly are & have a nice day!

you're not one of Edbear's sons are you?

[Madness]

you're not one of Edbear's sons are you?

No relation at all, in fact I've never met the cunt. If you're still his distributor for sales he doesn't go direct on you're closer to the false messiah than I'll ever be.

Getting back to the OP, seeing that's the purpose of this discussion;

Swab testing for Cannabis: not ideal as it doesn't identify impairment. Does only pick up recent use however so probably quite reasonable & acceptable.

Piss testing for Cannabis: completely unacceptable as this can pick up residual traces that can relate to historic use that has no bearing on impairment & therefore safety. What a racer got up to 6 weeks prior to a race meet is none of the organising body's (or anyone else's for that matter) business. Law enforcement agencies, you know, those organisations actually tasked with enforcing our drug laws, don't use this method as it has been deemed unacceptable by our law-makers.

Fuck, it's so simple it's laughable.

[Drew]

No relation at all, in fact I've never met the cunt. If you're still his distributor for sales he doesn't go direct on you're closer to the false messiah than I'll ever be.
You fixed your internet then? Did you forget to turn it on this morning?

[Madness]

You fixed your internet then? Did you forget to turn it on this morning?

I'm really starting to think you have issues Drew. The internet & landline are down so I'm typing on a smartphone. I don't actually have to switch the internet on each day, that would be as retarded as you are.

[Drew]

I'm really starting to think you have issues Drew. The internet & landline are down so I'm typing on a smartphone. I don't actually have to switch the internet on each day, that would be as retarded as you are.My mistake, for taking you at your word that you weren't going to waste your mobile data on this thread.

There are folk out there who turn routers off when they aren't using the net, for security. Does it surprise you to know that your way of doing things might not be the last word in everything?

[Madness]

My mistake, for taking you at your word that you weren't going to waste your mobile data on this thread.

Your comprehension skills have let you down once again Drew.


There are folk out there who turn routers off when they aren't using the net, for security. Does it surprise you to know that your way of doing things might not be the last word in everything?

Good for them! It's nice to be able to do what you like in your own home whilst not affecting others, innit.

Sorry Drew but typing on a touch screen the size of your miniscule little brain isn't a lot of fun. Instead I think I'll smoke a huge joint & go for a spirited ride. Enjoy your day cock.

[Drew]

Your comprehension skills have let you down once again Drew.



Good for them! It's nice to be able to do what you like in your own home whilst not affecting others, innit.

Sorry Drew but typing on a touch screen the size of your miniscule little brain isn't a lot of fun. Instead I think I'll smoke a huge joint & go for a spirited ride. Enjoy your day cock.

Too funny. Enjoy your ride.

[lukemillar]

Bullshit. It's been happening for decades already, how has the sport been compromised at all?

Your reply doesn't make any sense?

[Madness]

Your reply doesn't make any sense?

Considering that without doubt some motorcycle racing competitors have been using Cannabis at whatever level for decades now, I'd like you to tell us how this has compromised the sport?

[Drew]

Considering that without doubt some motorcycle racing competitors have been using Cannabis at whatever level for decades now, I'd like you to tell us how this has compromised the sport.By that logic, there's no need for any safety improvements over and above what's been normal for however long.

Let builders and the like fall from the roof of a building site, and sod training them in safe prceedure.

Let doctors operate with dirty hands, and utensiles. Who cares about infection?

Just another failing facet for a flawed argument, on your part. Keep up the good work.

How was your ride? Doesn't seem to have done anything toward waking you up.

[Madness]

By that logic, there's no need for any safety improvements over and above what's been normal for however long.

Let builders and the like fall from the roof of a building site, and sod training them in safe prceedure.

Let doctors operate with dirty hands, and utensiles. Who cares about infection?

Just another failing facet for a flawed argument, on your part. Keep up the good work.

How was your ride? Doesn't seem to have done anything toward waking you up.

Drew, any test that identifies traces of THC but cannot distinguish between ingestion 6 weeks prior and one day prior cannot be described as an adequate safety measure, just as it can't be used for law enforcement purposes. I've been wide awake since I woke up thismorning, unlike a lot of the sheep around here.

http://whoresandgangsters.com/node/97

[Drew]

Drew, any test that cannot distinguish between presence of THC & actual impairment cannot be described as an adequate safety measure, just as it can't be used for law enforcement purposes. I've been wide awake since I woke up thismorning, unlike a lot of the sheep around here.

http://whoresandgangsters.com/node/97But since the activity of smoking or any other taking of cannabis is illegal, anyone with it in their system is shit out of luck.

[Madness]

But since the activity of smoking or any other taking of cannabis is illegal, anyone with it in their system is shit out of luck.

Apparently so. Still, the subject was posted on an internet forum for discussion and we've been discussing it. Dunno about you but it's getting pretty fucking boring now & I'm giving up on any reply from Luke to my question, not that I expected one.

Fuck I'm glad I don't have the slightest inclination to take up racing.

[Drew]

Fuck I'm glad I don't have the slightest inclination to take up racing.Given how long a riders briefing might take, with your level of understanding, I'm fucken glad you don't race aswel!

[Madness]

Let doctors operate with dirty hands, and utensiles. Who cares about infection?

On the contrary, a better analogy to this discussion would be a situation where all doctors had to live in a bubble, so they didn't ever come in contact with germs, even 6 weeks prior to operating, regardless of the fact that a simple scrub down prior to entering the theatre would suffice in minimising the risk of infection.

You should write for Shortland Street.

[Madness]

Given how long a riders briefing might take, with your level of understanding, I'm fucken glad you don't race aswel!

Says the guy who admitted some ten pages in to having not read the OP & was going off without an understanding of what the discussion was about. Real sharp :niceone:

[Drew]

Says the guy who admitted some ten pages in to having not read the OP & was going off without an understanding of what the discussion was about. Real sharp :niceone:Be it SNZ or MNZ, doesn't change anything I've said though.

You can cling to any straw you like, but participating in an illegal activity and then bitching about the possibility of any consequence, is retarded. Any way it's looked at.

[Madness]

Be it SNZ or MNZ, doesn't change anything I've said though.

You can cling to any straw you like, but participating in an illegal activity and then bitching about the possibility of any consequence, is retarded. Any way it's looked at.

I wasn't referring to SNZ vs MNZ, more the fact that there are different options on the SNZ table in regards to test methods. Have a coffee, might help?

I'm not bitching about it either Drewfus, I'm not a participant & I haven't been disciplined. I'm merely offering a differing point of view, one which anyone who is a participant isn't likely to want to offer themselves due to the princess-like attitude being displayed right here by yourself and others. You don't disagree (I think) that the effects of ingesting Cannabis have well & truly gone after 4 or 5 weeks yet you insist that testing to this level is acceptable because it doesn't affect you & you don't give a rats arse about the freedom of choice of others, despite the fact that it presents no danger to anyone.

A fucking sad reflection on society really.

[Drew]

I wasn't referring to SNZ vs MNZ, more the fact that there are different options on the SNZ table in regards to test methods. Have a coffee, might help?

I'm not bitching about it either Drewfus, I'm not a participant & I haven't been disciplined. I'm merely offering a differing point of view, one which anyone who is a participant isn't likely to want to offer themselves due to the princess-like attitude being displayed right here by yourself and others. You don't disagree (I think) that the effects of ingesting Cannabis have well & truly gone after 4 or 5 weeks yet you insist that testing to this level is acceptable because it doesn't affect you & you don't give a rats arse about the freedom of choice of others, despite the fact that it presents no danger to anyone.

A fucking sad reflection on society really.You weren't just offering a different opinion though. You were very aggressive in attacking anyone who said that testing for the presence of THC is fine with them.

I have no problem with people getting high. It is their and my prerogative to do whatever they like to their bodies. But for higher testing, there is undoubtedly a higher bill to be paid. It's the members that foot that bill, and as one I don't see why I should.

[jellywrestler]

You weren't just offering a different opinion though. You were very aggressive in attacking anyone who said that testing for the presence of THC is fine with them.

I have no problem with people getting high. It is their and my prerogative to do whatever they like to their bodies. But for higher testing, there is undoubtedly a higher bill to be paid. It's the members that foot that bill, and as one I don't see why I should.

so approx how many heinys will you have the night before a race meeting?

[Drew]

so approx how many heinys will you have the night before a race meeting?Once I'm feeling the effects, I stop. I'm happy to admit this hasn't always been the case.

We're all hypocrites, I wonder where it is you're going with this line of questioning.

[Madness]

You weren't just offering a different opinion though. You were very aggressive in attacking anyone who said that testing for the presence of THC is fine with them.

Cry me a fucking river, you've been as big a cunt in this thread as I have. I've been aggressive in disagreeing that any amateur sport body should have the right to dictate what it's members do in their own time that has no effect on what they do in the sport. So far the only argument I'm hearing from you lot is "because it's illegal" - so if this is not about safety, but some perverted idea that it's SNZ's job to uphold the drug laws of this country, then why aren't they also vetting for traffic convictions, etc? - I'll tell you why, because they're being discriminatory towards responsible Cannabis users, using methods deemed inappropriate for actual law-enforcement agencies to use in their failed "war against drugs".


I have no problem with people getting high. It is their and my prerogative to do whatever they like to their bodies. But for higher testing, there is undoubtedly a higher bill to be paid. It's the members that foot that bill, and as one I don't see why I should.

You know for a fact that mouth-swab testing is more expensive than a piss test? Where's some evidence of this (not that I'm disagreeing, I don't know) as there was no mention of a higher cost in the OP from Hayden, who seems to have had the NZDDA sales pitch. I'm assuming that the parameters differ because one sample is taken from the inlet, the other from an outlet, so to speak, rather than due to a more involved/expensive process.

Where's Hayden with some facts in this regard?

[haydes55]

I'm silent when it comes to what I don't know. As far as cost is concerned, safety costs are a high priority, so the difference in cost should be classed as negligible.

100% of impaired riders who are high on marijuana, will test positive for THC in a piss test.

Not all who test positive for THC will be impaired to a level which effects racing. This is a moot point because it is an illegal substance and for an official organisation to make allowances for members to break the law, whether at 5 weeks before or 5 days would be ludicrous.

No they don't have to enforce NZ laws. But they don't have to adjust their rules and methods to allow criminals to participate.

What's to say a racer will abstain for a week before racing, then get a swab, pass, then light up a joint after the first race? A urine test shows people who have a drug habit. Those with a habit are unlikely to stop smoking and it's crazy to expect racers yo be tested before and after racing, when it could be too late, and after racing it is not a safety issue for that meeting.

Can you at least see why it is an advantage for SNZ to remove drugs from the sport?

By the way, SNZ is hardly an "amateur sporting body" when they write and enforce the rules for meetings in NZ which often hand out prize money of up to $100,000 in one night.

[Madness]

I'm silent when it comes to what I don't know. As far as cost is concerned, safety costs are a high priority, so the difference in cost should be classed as negligible.

So the difference in cost is negligible. Thanks for that.


100% of impaired riders who are high on marijuana, will test positive for THC in a piss test.

And 100% of impaired riders who are high on marijuana, will also test positive for recent THC ingestion in a mouth-swab test, correct?


Not all who test positive for THC will be impaired to a level which effects racing. This is a moot point because it is an illegal substance and for an official organisation to make allowances for members to break the law, whether at 5 weeks before or 5 days would be ludicrous.

But by using the more accurate test for actual impairment, the mouth-swab test, you're hardly making an allowance - you're just using a more appropriate test, one used by law enforcement agencies for road side testing.


No they don't have to enforce NZ laws. But they don't have to adjust their rules and methods to allow criminals to participate.

I'm saying the recent adjustment to your rules & methods could have been done better, more fairly, to address actual safety concerns. Instead, as you posted much earlier, SNZ is taking this approach to be seen in the best light by media, regardless of the potential infringement on riders human rights. I'm assuming that if there indeed are Cannabis users amongst SNZ riders then these "criminals" were already participating in the sport, it's only the adjustment that you've made that could now preclude them, regardless of whether or not it affects safety.


What's to say a racer will abstain for a week before racing, then get a swab, pass, then light up a joint after the first race? A urine test shows people who have a drug habit. Those with a habit are unlikely to stop smoking and it's crazy to expect racers yo be tested before and after racing, when it could be too late, and after racing it is not a safety issue for that meeting.

So the poor cunt who doesn't have a habit, but had a single smoke 5 weeks prior to a race meet is fucked. You cunts are mean as. You admitted to experiencing slurred speech days after ingesting Cannabis (which is pretty unusual in my experience), yet you seem to think it plausible that someone who has gone to the efforts of passing a mouth-swab test will nek minnut go & spark a doob between races? Yeah, nah.


Can you at least see why it is an advantage for SNZ to remove drugs from the sport?

I can see the importance of removing drugs from the sport, but having a smoke 5 weeks prior is none of SNZ's fucking business.


By the way, SNZ is hardly an "amateur sporting body" when they write and enforce the rules for meetings in NZ which often hand out prize money of up to $100,000 in one night.

I suggest you look up the definition of a professional sport. Unless of course you hand out $100,000 to each rider every season or they're all employed full-time as riders, you're all amateurs I'm afraid.

[gixerracer]

Anyone using drugs at any time should get the fuck off any race track

[Drew]

Cry me a fucking river, you've been as big a cunt in this thread as I have.Of course I have. The tone was set, and I obliged.
I've been aggressive in disagreeing that any amateur sport body should have the right to dictate what it's members do in their own time that has no effect on what they do in the sport. So far the only argument I'm hearing from you lot is "because it's illegal" - so if this is not about safety, but some perverted idea that it's SNZ's job to uphold the drug laws of this country, then why aren't they also vetting for traffic convictions, etc? - I'll tell you why, because they're being discriminatory towards responsible Cannabis users, using methods deemed inappropriate for actual law-enforcement agencies to use in their failed "war against drugs".My argument is not pointed singularly I think. Could be though, can't be bothered going back and quoting myself repeatedly to find out. I do remember a couple of analogies I made about safety not being furthered in any form, and it's likeness to something you said. But we'll forget that if you like since you decided to ignore the point I was making with them, and focus on how they could have been better analogies instead.




You know for a fact that mouth-swab testing is more expensive than a piss test? Where's some evidence of this (not that I'm disagreeing, I don't know) as there was no mention of a higher cost in the OP from Hayden, who seems to have had the NZDDA sales pitch. I'm assuming that the parameters differ because one sample is taken from the inlet, the other from an outlet, so to speak, rather than due to a more involved/expensive process.

Where's Hayden with some facts in this regard?I also don't know either way. Just sort of figure that actual measurements are taken it would cost more.


I'm saying the recent adjustment to your rules & methods could have been done better, more fairly, to address actual safety concerns. Instead, as you posted much earlier, SNZ is taking this approach to be seen in the best light by media, regardless of the potential infringement on riders human rights.I guess it is someones human right to decide whether they obey the law or not. I still maintain that it's no one else's problem but their own should they get caught in the latter.

[Drew]

Anyone using drugs at any time should get the fuck off any race trackHow was your Peroni the other day old man?

[nodrog]

.....

But by using the more accurate test for actual impairment, the mouth-swab test....

But what if I eat hash muffins with my arse?

like the chicks that soak their tampons in vodka so they can pass the breathelyser test?

[Madness]

I also don't know either way. Just sort of figure that actual measurements are taken it would cost more.

So when you typed this...


But for higher testing, there is undoubtedly a higher bill to be paid. It's the members that foot that bill, and as one I don't see why I should.

You were blowing hot air out of your arse? How unusual.


I do remember a couple of analogies I made about safety not being furthered in any form, and it's likeness to something you said. But we'll forget that if you like since you decided to ignore the point I was making with them, and focus on how they could have been better analogies instead.

The analogies you raised were all shit & I called you on it, you failed to respond. The key word here is failed.


I still maintain that it's no one else's problem but their own should they get caught in the latter.

And to be honest, I couldn't really care less as it does not & will not affect me directly. As I said earlier though, there isn't going to be much of a debate from within in light of the narrow-minded culture that's so clearly evident in racing circles. Better watch out Drew, it won't be long & they'll start testing for AIDS & other venereal diseases.

[Madness]

But what if I eat hash muffins with my arse?

like the chicks that soak their tampons in vodka so they can pass the breathelyser test?

Come on Gordy, we all know your arse is so loose that even a 3-layer banana cake with sticky icing would fall out.

[nodrog]

Come on Gordy, we all know your arse is so loose that even a 3-layer banana cake with sticky icing would fall out.

what no candles!!!?

[Madness]

what no candles!!!?

Nope. They could be used to light a cleansack sized marijuana cigarette, smoked in the pits between races that only a piss-test could detect.

:facepalm:

[Drew]

So when you typed this...




You were blowing hot air out of your arse? How unusual.It didn't when I typed it, or you quoted it, state anything as fact. I think it is likely, and made that clear by saying undoubtedly. But I can see what you're saying, so I'll concede.






The analogies you raised were all shit & I called you on it, you failed to respond. The key word here is failed.You gave what you described as a better analogy to one, but didn't respond at all to the point I was trying to make, that you know damn well you understood. Still haven't in fact.




And to be honest, I couldn't really care less as it does not & will not affect me directly. As I said earlier though, there isn't going to be much of a debate from within in light of the narrow-minded culture that's so clearly evident in racing circles. Better watch out Drew, it won't be long & they'll start testing for AIDS & other venereal diseases."Couldn't care less"? Really? You have been quite adamant/beligerant/abusive toward me, for someone with no vested interest or care about the subject. Think I'll call flat out bulshit on this score cheif!

It is asked of me when applying for my race lisence, if I suffer any medical condition that could effect my ability to race. Should the qualification be changed to include possible extra risk to emergency staff if I need medical attention and I do contract AIDS/HIV, then I will make it known. Not doing so would be irresponsible/selfish, and risk me not being able to compete through failing to meet the terms and conditions I have agreed to uphold.

[skippa1]

I believe( though stand to be corrected) that when testing sportsmen and women for performance enhancing drugs, they test for positive or negative. They don't discriminate between small or large doses, nor do they make any call on how much effect the drugs may impact performance. It's simply pass or fail.

in regard to the cost of tests, the ones we buy for work are, urine=$18, swab=$22. Urine test takes 3min, swab 12min. Urine gives conclusive yes or no, swab can be tainted with food or drink. Both have to be sent to ESR for confirmation.

If ya wanna race, just don't do drugs. Simple. Why should officials bother wasting time and dollars trying to confirm when someone had a smoke?

[Drew]

Nope. They could be used to light a cleansack sized marijuana cigarette, smoked in the pits between races that only a piss-test could detect.

:facepalm:Your sarcasm can be quite amusing, when you don't feel your superiority is challenged. You really should give some thought to therapy, there's no shame in it.

[Madness]

You gave what you described as a better analogy to one, but didn't respond at all to the point I was trying to make, that you know damn well you understood. Still haven't in fact.

Sorry Drew, I couldn't see either the point you were trying to make or the relevance of either of the two analogies you posted. I thought they were pretty pathetic really, maybe it was nap time?


"Couldn't care less"? Really? You have been quite adamant/beligerant/abusive toward me, for someone with no vested interest or care about the subject. Think I'll call flat out bulshit on this score cheif!

No, really, this subject has no relevance to me. I'm posting here purely for entertainment and in the interests of a balanced, reasoned debate.


It is asked of me when applying for my race lisence, if I suffer any medical condition that could effect my ability to race. Should the qualification be changed to include possible extra risk to emergency staff if I need medical attention and I do contract AIDS/HIV, then I will make it known. Not doing so would be irresponsible/selfish, and risk me not being able to compete through failing to meet the terms and conditions I have agreed to uphold.

That's nice. I can actually see the seriousness in what you've said here. On the other hand though, if MNZ wanted to know if you had genital warts, assuming it has no relevance to racing, how would you reply (let's just pretend you have them for the sake of discussion) :msn-wink:

[Madness]

Your sarcasm can be quite amusing, when you don't feel your superiority is challenged. You really should give some thought to therapy, there's no shame in it.

I'm trying but you fuckers don't seem too receptive to it so far. Anyhow, seeing as shrinks don't usually have to wear steel-capped boots to work, I'm going to take your advice as yet more arse-emanating hot air.

[Drew]

Sorry Drew, I couldn't see either the point you were trying to make or the relevance of either of the two analogies you posted. I thought they were pretty pathetic really, maybe it was nap time?Is that right? I'll paraphrase for the sake of time. You said that drug testing wasn't required now, because it's not been done before and hasn't caused issue...(Not that you actually know drugs haven't presented as an issue at the track, you aren't privvy to either discipline of racing incidents).

My meaning in my analogies was simple I think. Just because it hasn't been a problem, doesn't mean it won't. If we have the power to further reduce that risk, the precedent of not having done so is irrelevant.




No, really, this subject has no relevance to me. I'm posting here purely for entertainment and in the interests of a balanced, reasoned debate.Balanced and reasoned? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ! You refuse to take anything on board from any point of view than your own. And then you misrepresent what is said and argue with that instead. "Debate", that is not. "Reasoned", something I don't think you comprehend.




That's nice. I can actually see the seriousness in what you've said here. On the other hand though, if MNZ wanted to know if you had genital warts, assuming it has no relevance to racing, how would you reply (let's just pretend you have them for the sake of discussion) :msn-wink:OK. In that instance, I would ask (at the same time as unintentionally confirming) why the club needed the info. Failing a satisfactory response, I would make formal complaint. Were my complaint not met with a satisfactory result still, I'D DECIDE WHETHER I STILL WANTED TO CONTINUE WITH THE SPORT JUST LIKE ANY DRUG USER HAS THE POWER TO DO.

[Madness]

My meaning in my analogies was simple I think. Just because it hasn't been a problem, doesn't mean it won't. If we have the power to further reduce that risk, the precedent of not having done so is irrelevant.

And I'm suggesting that by using a swab test rather than a piss test, the power to further reduce the risk is in no way diminished or reduced.


Balanced and reasoned? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ! You refuse to take anything on board from any point of view than your own. And then you misrepresent what is said and argue with that instead. "Debate", that is not. "Reasoned", something I don't think you comprehend.

I misrepresent what is said? Show me where I stated that I don't think drug testing is required, it never happened. Please stop misrepresenting what is said Drew, it makes you look like even more of a cock, if that's possible.

And if this discussion contained nothing more than the arguments of "I don't do drugs, therefore nobody else should" it would be more balanced? You're the one who has on several occasions had to concede that you didn't know what the fuck it was that you were talking about. I am not privy to disciplinary records, which is why I asked about any specific cases where Cannabis has compromised the sport - I'm yet to be told of any though, eh Sherlock?


OK. In that instance, I would ask (at the same time as unintentionally confirming) why the club needed the info. Failing a satisfactory response, I would make formal complaint. Were my complaint not met with a satisfactory result still, I'D DECIDE WHETHER I STILL WANTED TO CONTINUE WITH THE SPORT JUST LIKE ANY DRUG USER HAS THE POWER TO DO.

And I'm asking for a satisfactory reason as to why SNZ has any business knowing what someone did up to 6 weeks prior to a race meeting. So far all I've got is "but it's illegal" and "anyone who tests positive must therefore have a habit". These reasons don't stack up against an attempt at reducing risk on-track in my mind whilst other, possibly better methods remain available, for an apparent extra $4.00 per test (I'm assuming that's inclusive of 15% GST, which would probably also be tax-deductible).

[Drew]

And I'm suggesting that by using a swab test rather than a piss test, the power to further reduce the risk is in no way diminished or reduced.To which I have repeatedly replied. Why should we/they have to?




I misrepresent what is said? Show me where I stated that I don't think drug testing is required, it never happened. Please stop misrepresenting what is said Drew, it makes you look like even more of a cock.Given present company, I'm comfortable with however I might appear.


And if this discussion contained nothing more than the arguments of "I don't do drugs, therefore nobody else should" it would be more balanced? You're the one who has on several occasions had to concede that you didn't know what the fuck it was that you were talking about.I dunno that twice, is fairly represented by "several". Nor would I further concede that "I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about".


I am not privy to disciplinary records, which is why I asked about any specific cases where Cannabis has compromised the sport - I'm yet to be told of any though, eh Sherlock?When I used "discaplines", I was refering to the different types of racing. The point of which was that you know nothing about whether drugs have been a factor in any incidents.



And I'm asking for a satisfactory reason as to why SNZ has any business knowing what someone did up to 6 weeks prior to a race meeting. So far all I've got is "but it's illegal" and "anyone who tests positive must therefore have a habit". These reasons don't stack up against an attempt at reducing risk on-track in my mind whilst other methods remain available, for an apparent extra $4.00 per test (I'm assuming that's inclusive of 15% GST, which would probably be tax-deductible).You are welcome to join the appropriate clubs who's practices you aren't happy with then and make your concerns known and formal, to seek the satisfaction your rantings on here are not giving you.

[haydes55]

Urine tests pick up any drug that is still in the body which could negatively effect safety.

Swab test check what has been smoked recently.

Your argument is that people should be able to smoke weed when they want (that's an issue for legalising, not tolerated in racing). Fair enough. In an ideal world it would be great to be able to smoke weed, then when racing is on stop a few days before and be sweet.

Now the issue is, a swab test would tell only recent weed smoking, which would wok. But then drugs which never pass the lips, wouldn't be detected. So to pander to those who want to smoke C class drugs, we need to let A class drugs pass? For those who can't go without a fix, would they not start injecting?

[Madness]

To which I have repeatedly replied. Why should we/they have to?

Why not? Your previous uninformed argument of a higher cost has been blown apart. The agencies tasked with enforcing our drug laws don't use the methods being adopted by SNZ so why the fuck not conform with what is accepted as best practice by people who probably know a thing or two about the subject?


Given present company, I'm comfortable with however I might appear.

No worries, I was brought up to be nice to retards.


I dunno that twice, is fairly represented by "several". Nor would I further concede that "I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about".

Several >1. You don't have to concede it Drew, it's apparent to anyone who can read.


When I used "discaplines", I was refering to the different types of racing. The point of which was that you know nothing about whether drugs have been a factor in any incidents.

Correct, which is why I asked for examples, seeing as I have an open mind & am prepared to look at a situation from other perspectives. Still no examples forthcoming, just like your example of my misrepresentation of what is said. Come on Drew, you can do better than this, it's like arguing with 'spokes FFS!


You are welcome to join the appropriate clubs who's practices you aren't happy with then and make your concerns known and formal, to seek the satisfaction your rantings on here are not giving you.

Don't need to, I'm having enough fun ranting on the internet about it.

You got anything, I mean ANYTHING?

[Drew]

Why not? Your previous uninformed argument of a higher cost has been blown apart. The agencies tasked with enforcing our drug laws don't use the methods being adopted by SNZ so why the fuck not conform with what is accepted as best practice by people who probably know a thing or two about the subject?$4 representing a precentage of 20. That's a substantially great cost.




No worries, I was brought up to be nice to retards.Was this after you were caught fighting with the other kids in special ed'?




Several >1. You don't have to concede it Drew, it's apparent to anyone who can read.I usually know pretty early when I've chosen the wrong side of an argument to go onendlessly about round here. Every bastard I've ever been cheeky to comes on and starts telling me to fuck up. Since this is our first 'set to' that I can think of, you don't count by the way.




Correct, which is why I asked for examples, seeing as I have an open mind & am prepared to look at a situation from other perspectives. Still no examples forthcoming, just like your example of my misrepresentation of what is said. Come on Drew, you can do better than this, it's like arguing with 'spokes FFS!I am certainly not about to make any information I might/not have about specific cases, public for the sake of this load of old tripe!




Don't need to, I'm having enough fun ranting on the internet about it.

You got anything, I mean ANYTHING?I've got something alright. I've got your missus pussy on my breath, and I tell you she needs to shower more often!

[Madness]

Urine tests pick up any drug that is still in the body which could negatively effect safety.

Swab test check what has been smoked recently.

Your argument is that people should be able to smoke weed when they want (that's an issue for legalising, not tolerated in racing). Fair enough. In an ideal world it would be great to be able to smoke weed, then when racing is on stop a few days before and be sweet.

Now the issue is, a swab test would tell only recent weed smoking, which would wok. But then drugs which never pass the lips, wouldn't be detected. So to pander to those who want to smoke C class drugs, we need to let A class drugs pass? For those who can't go without a fix, would they not start injecting?

Are you serious? Injecting Cannabis? :laugh: You really think there are people who can afford to race and Class-A drugs? :laugh:

I think you've been sucked in. Did NZDDA screen this (http://youtu.be/54xWo7ITFbg) movie during their presentation by any chance?

My argument is that people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want to do 4,5 or 6 weeks prior to going onto an event, providing it has no bearing on safety in an amateur sport.

[Madness]

$4 representing a precentage of 20. That's a substantially great cost.

So pass it on to those who opt for it over a piss test?


Was this after you were caught fighting with the other kids in special ed'?

Yes and I can see you still carry the emotional scars to this day. Sorry spaz.


I usually know pretty early when I've chosen the wrong side of an argument to go onendlessly about round here. Every bastard I've ever been cheeky to comes on and starts telling me to fuck up. Since this is our first 'set to' that I can think of, you don't count by the way.

You've lost me champ.


I am certainly not about to make any information I might/not have about specific cases, public for the sake of this load of old tripe!

And you're seemingly not about to show where I've misrepresented what is said either. Fail.


I've got something alright. I've got your missus pussy on my breath, and I tell you she needs to shower more often!

Fair enough. Must be frustrating getting no pussy after marrying a trannie.

[Drew]

Are you serious? Injecting Cannabis? :laugh: You really think there are people who can afford to race and Class-A drugs? :laugh:Fucken oath the can! You are very very naive if you think otherwise. You have been to the speedway eh? There is a metric fucken shit tonne of money involved in some of the wallets of drivers/teams.


I think you've been sucked in. Did NZDDA screen this (http://youtu.be/54xWo7ITFbg) movie during their presentation by any chance?Oh yeah, you know him well enough to make that judgement.


My argument is that people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want to do 4,5 or 6 weeks prior to going onto an event, providing it has no bearing on safety in an amateur sport.I'll offer you a sound solution then, and you try and sell it to competitors who use drugs.

How about they pay for their own test the morning of an event. One that proves they are not under any influence, but will probably show traces of THC. See what they think of the idea of having to admit to it, before proving they're safe to compete. Yeah, it'll go down like a cup of cold sick. Now fuck off ya raving cock wallet!

[Madness]

Fucken oath the can! You are very very naive if you think otherwise. You have been to the speedway eh? There is a metric fucken shit tonne of money involved in some of the wallets of drivers/teams.

You have been to Rosebank eh Drew?


Oh yeah, you know him well enough to make that judgement.

I'll make that judgement about anyone who suggests that recreational Cannabis users would consider administering the substance hyperdermically.


I'll offer you a sound solution then, and you try and sell it to competitors who use drugs.

How about they pay for their own test the morning of an event. One that proves they are not under any influence, but will probably show traces of THC. See what they think of the idea of having to admit to it, before proving they're safe to compete. Yeah, it'll go down like a cup of cold sick. Now fuck off ya raving cock wallet!

So you're suggesting what I've been arguing for this entire thread, but you've added that they pay for it? I'll call that a win.

Now fuck off yourself, some muppet somewhere needs assistance doing wheelies on their GN - something you might actually be capable of contributing to.

[Drew]

So pass it on to those who opt for it over a piss test?I addressed this in my last post. You sell it to the 'smokers'.




Yes and I can see you still carry the emotional scars to this day. Sorry spaz.If we've ever gone toe to toe, ya must hit like a truck or a bitch. 'Cause I don't remember it.




You've lost me champ.Doesn't mean anything I said needed to be that difficult to understand.




And you're seemingly not about to show where I've misrepresented what is said either. Fail.Have I not? The debacle of you focusing on the inaccuracy of my analogies, rather than the point being made doesn't count. Must be my mistake then, what a hypocrite I am.




Fair enough. Must be frustrating getting no pussy after marrying a trannie.That's funny. I asked her if she'd met you. Yes, and her opinion of you is similarly high if the look of disgust was anything to go by.

[haydes55]

Answer to question is a bit of a no-brainer I would think....





.... I wish everyone knew this was a no brainer.

[Drew]

You have been to Rosebank eh Drew? Nope. Might have driven through it on the way to an install.




I'll make that judgement about anyone who suggests that recreational Cannabis users would consider administering the substance hyperdermically.I think the implication was that what you would have 'users' do, is take A class drugs instead.




So you're suggesting what I've been arguing for this entire thread, but you've added that they pay for it? I'll call that a win.

Now fuck off yourself, some muppet somewhere needs assistance doing wheelies on their GN - something you might actually be capable of contributing to.You can call it whatever you want. But I doubt that's the case, since I bet NONE of the smokers show up with cup'o'pee saying. "Fuck yeah, I blaze up. I aint high now though, lemme drive/ride".

[Madness]

Have I not? The debacle of you focusing on the inaccuracy of my analogies, rather than the point being made doesn't count. Must be my mistake then, what a hypocrite I am.

Your analogies again, fucking gems of intelligence they were.


My meaning in my analogies was simple I think. Just because it hasn't been a problem, doesn't mean it won't. If we have the power to further reduce that risk, the precedent of not having done so is irrelevant.


Let builders and the like fall from the roof of a building site, and sod training them in safe prceedure.

Because no builder has ever fallen from a roof?


Let doctors operate with dirty hands, and utensiles.

Because no patient has ever had an infection resulting from an operation?

No, your analogies were shit I'm afraid. This one was much more relevant, yet you decided not to respond to it, because you've got nothing.


On the contrary, a better analogy to this discussion would be a situation where all doctors had to live in a bubble, so they didn't ever come in contact with germs, even 6 weeks prior to operating, regardless of the fact that a simple scrub down prior to entering the theatre would suffice in minimising the risk of infection.

Admit it, you're impaired!

[Drew]

Your analogies again, fucking gems of intelligence they were.





Because no builder has ever fallen from a roof?



Because no patient has ever had an infection resulting from an operation?

No, your analogies were shit I'm afraid. This one was much more relevant, yet you decided not to respond to it, because you've got nothing.



Admit it, you're impaired!I'm impaired? You are not just implying that no one has ever been hurt on a track with drugs being a factor, it's the only conclusion I can draw from the way you say my analogies are wrong.

[Madness]

Nope. Might have driven through it on the way to an install.

So your earlier comment was again unqualified & irrelevant then?

[Drew]

So your earlier comment was again unqualified & irrelevant then?That racers can infact afford A class drugs? No, I stand by that.

[Madness]

I'm impaired? You are not just implying that no one has ever been hurt on a track with drugs being a factor, it's the only conclusion I can draw from the way you say my analogies are wrong.

I'm saying your analogies are wrong when you look at the explanation you yourself provided to them, which I also quoted, as they made no sense to the discussion. I am not implying that no one has ever been hurt on a track with drugs being a factor at all (please don't misrepresent again, it's getting old) in fact I've asked repeatedly for examples which, if they do exist, are all top secret, ssshhhhhh!

[Madness]

That racers can infact afford A class drugs? No, I stand by that.

Based on visiting presumably every speedway track but the one that this discussion relates to.

Besides, do you or anyone else really believe that a racer could be competing under the influence of Heroin, Cocaine, LSD, Ecstacy or Meth without it being blaringly obvious to all without the need for a test? Dunno 'bout you cunts but I can usually spot a junkie or a tweaker a lot easier than someone who's had a puff on a doob.

[Drew]

I'm saying your analogies are wrong when you look at the explanation you yourself provided to them, which I also quoted, as they made no sense to the discussion. I am not implying that no one has ever been hurt on a track with drugs being a factor at all (please don't misrepresent again, it's getting old) in fact I've asked repeatedly for examples which, if they do exist, are all top secret, ssshhhhhh!If it has happened, it's not public knowledge. Further, as a non member of any race club I wouldn't tell you if I knew of any.

You can go searching for coroners reports from accidents in the racing arena, I dunno how public they are. Think ya have to have an interest before you can get them though.

You won't get fuck all out of me, other than a smile and a middle finger.

[Drew]

Based on visiting presumably every speedway track but the one that this discussion relates to.

Besides, do you or anyone else really believe that a racer could be competing under the influence of Heroin, Cocaine, LSD, Ecstacy or Meth without it being blaringly obvious to all without the need for a test? Dunno 'bout you cunts but I can usually spot a junkie or a tweaker a lot easier than someone who's had a puff on a doob.
Well there ya go. Another solution!

You pay for the stoners to get accurate testing, and just stand at riders/drivers briefing pointing the definitive finger at the A class users.

All is fucken sorted now!

[Madness]

If it has happened, it's not public knowledge. Further, as a non member of any race club I wouldn't tell you if I knew of any.

You can go searching for coroners reports from accidents in the racing arena, I dunno how public they are. Think ya have to have an interest before you can get them though.

You won't get fuck all out of me, other than a smile and a middle finger.

I'm not really pressing you for examples as such, it was something I asked of the poster who suggested that smoking Cannabis, even 6 weeks prior to an event, somehow compromises the sport. The silence from said member is deafening, I assume he's just another drama queen with fuck all like yourself.

[Madness]

Well there ya go. Another solution!

You pay for the stoners to get accurate testing, and just stand at riders/drivers briefing pointing the definitive finger at the A class users.

All is fucken sorted now!

Is this your way of saying you give up Drew?

[Drew]

Is this your way of saying you give up Drew?Hahahahahaha. I don't give up when I'm wrong, this is never gonna get old for me!

[Madness]

Hahahahahaha. I don't give up when I'm wrong, this is never gonna get old for me!

So you admit you're wrong then?

:confused:

[Drew]

So you admit you're wrong then?

:confused:
Now who's comprehension is lacking?

You don't have a leg to stand on. Get it through the haze and your thick skull.

Because it's illegal to smoke weed, any grievance you or anyone has regarding the testing thereof doesn't have to be taken seriously. And that's just to start. Every other thing you've decided is pro your side of the argument, doesn't excuse the use in the first place.

There are no 'rights' being overlooked, because acting in conflict with not only laws but terms of a signed contract are the prevailing issues.

[Madness]

Please do me a favour read the following four quotes from very recent posts. They are in the correct sequence & are not misrepresented...


Is this your way of saying you give up Drew?


I don't give up when I'm wrong, this is never gonna get old for me!


So you admit you're wrong then?


Now who's comprehension is lacking?

WTF? And you're on the "anti-drug" side of the discussion.


You don't have a leg to stand on. Get it through the haze and your thick skull.

Because it's illegal to smoke weed, any grievance you or anyone has regarding the testing thereof doesn't have to be taken seriously. And that's just to start. Every other thing you've decided is pro your side of the argument, doesn't excuse the use in the first place.

There are no 'rights' being overlooked, because acting in conflict with not only laws but terms of a signed contract are the prevailing issues.

You know, on a legal basis I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct. Still doesn't make it right though.

[haydes55]

Have any accidents occurred due to drug impaired racers? Undoubtedly so.

Have I got any examples? No, unless a fatality occurs or a serious injury is being protested and investigated, no one will find out. If it was found out I can bet my left nut no racing organisation wants that info to be well known that they allowed a drug impaired racer on the track.

Not every A class drug user is a crack head. Some heavy drug users can just take a hit every now and then. Have you ever met anyone who is drug free Sunday through Thursday then when they go to town or out partying they do a rail of cocaine or if their mates are doing a few hits of P they grab a needle.

People will want to take drugs before racing, whether to calm their nerves or enhance the buzz.

No one has the right to smoke, there is no right being infringed by urine testing. You have a right to privacy sure, but why is the burden on the organisation to ensure people can partake in illegal activities?

If weed didn't last longer than the buzz in your system, what type of test would you recommend be used?

Urine test is the obvious answer to screen for every drug. Why should the ideal test now be thrown out in favor of a less accurate indicator of all drugs just to allow people to smoke weed?

[gixerracer]

How was your Peroni the other day old man?

Retard it was after the day finished, I had one beer and did not ride for another 7 days

[Madness]

Have any accidents occurred due to drug impaired racers? Undoubtedly so.

Have I got any examples? No, unless a fatality occurs or a serious injury is being protested and investigated, no one will find out. If it was found out I can bet my left nut no racing organisation wants that info to be well known that they allowed a drug impaired racer on the track.

But by opting for the piss test you're eliminating anyone who may have been impaired to any level within the six weeks or more prior. The test exceeds the requirements.


Not every A class drug user is a crack head. Some heavy drug users can just take a hit every now and then. Have you ever met anyone who is drug free Sunday through Thursday then when they go to town or out partying they do a rail of cocaine or if their mates are doing a few hits of P they grab a needle.

Again, the reference to needles. Do you seriously think that when you go to the track & you're amongst your peers that you're amongst hyper dermic drug-users? I've been around a little while & I'm yet to come across anyone who has a few hits of P through a syringe and in all my years I've only ever heard third-party reference to cocaine use. Look up some stats, you're waffling on about drug issues that simply don't exist in this country on any significant scale.


People will want to take drugs before racing, whether to calm their nerves or enhance the buzz.

So use a test that is more relevant to identifying impairment at the time of the sample being taken then if drugs before racing is the issue.


No one has the right to smoke, there is no right being infringed by urine testing. You have a right to privacy sure, but why is the burden on the organisation to ensure people can partake in illegal activities?

There is no burden to ensure people can partake in illegal activities, just as there is probably no burden to drug test in the first place, other than for a duty of care which should be track-safety oriented rather than a lifestyle qualification. The NZ Police do not conduct roadside random piss testing for Cannabis, are they therefore "ensuring people can partake in illegal activities"?


If weed didn't last longer than the buzz in your system, what type of test would you recommend be used?

Out of the options being discussed here, the same one I'm recommending now.


Urine test is the obvious answer to screen for every drug. Why should the ideal test now be thrown out in favor of a less accurate indicator of all drugs just to allow people to smoke weed?

So don't throw it out, I can see how convenient it is from an administrative and cost perspective. A compromise might be to offer an optional mouth swab test at the cost of the racer, to be taken at the same time as the piss sample. Kind of like Drew's suggestion earlier, but less retarded. If they fail the piss test for THC but pass the mouth swab test, perhaps leniency could be applied, all at no cost to the organisation and in the interests of safety & fairness to competitors who may have had an innocent puff of on a Class-C marijuana cigarette some 6 weeks prior?

NZDDA will love it! Their sales just went up by 20%. It should stop the moaning within the ranks & I'll shut the fuck up.

What ya reckon?

[Drew]

Retard it was after the day finished, I had one beer and did not ride for another 7 days

I wasn't saying you drank it as eye opener and went riding, ballbag. I thought you were saying no one should ever do drugs, so was giving you shit about having a beer...Don't think I've ever seen you have one other than in that pic, finally you can be trusted!

[Drew]

But by opting for the piss test you're eliminating anyone who may have been impaired to any level within the six weeks or more prior. The test exceeds the requirements.



Again, the reference to needles. Do you seriously think that when you go to the track & you're amongst your peers that you're amongst hyper dermic drug-users? I've been around a little while & I'm yet to come across anyone who has a few hits of P through a syringe and in all my years I've only ever heard third-party reference to cocaine use. Look up some stats, you're waffling on about drug issues that simply don't exist in this country on any significant scale.



So use a test that is more relevant to identifying impairment at the time of the sample being taken then if drugs before racing is the issue.



There is no burden to ensure people can partake in illegal activities, just as there is probably no burden to drug test in the first place, other than for a duty of care which should be track-safety oriented rather than a lifestyle qualification. The NZ Police do not conduct roadside random piss testing for Cannabis, are they therefore "ensuring people can partake in illegal activities"?



Out of the options being discussed here, the same one I'm recommending now.



So don't throw it out, I can see how convenient it is from an administrative and cost perspective. A suggestion might be to offer an optional mouth swab test at the cost of the racer, to be taken at the same time as the piss sample. Kind of like Drew's suggestion earlier, but less retarded. If they fail the piss test for THC but pass the mouth swab test, perhaps leniency could be applied, all at no cost to the organisation and in the interests of safety & fairness to competitors who may have had an innocent puff of on a Class-C marijuana cigarette some 6 weeks prior?

NZDDA will love it! Their sales just went up by 20%. It should stop the moaning within the ranks & I'll shut the fuck up.

What ya reckon?. Ignorance of the drugs available (and how fucking awesome 'Charlie' is if you know where to get it and have a house to mortgage to buy a couple grams) I suppose is to be expected by most in this country.

Might have seriously declined in quality in the ten years since I had any, Christ knows everything else around is fucken shit house.

[Madness]

. Ignorance of the drugs available (and how fucking awesome 'Charlie' is if you know where to get it and have a house to mortgage to buy a couple grams) I suppose is to be expected by most in this country.

Unless you're a speedway racer, apparently.


Might have seriously declined in quality in the ten years since I had any, Christ knows everything else around is fucken shit house.

Plenty of excellent buds around, apparently.

[Drew]

Unless you're a speedway racer, apparently.



Plenty of excellent buds around, apparently.

Don't doubt for a second man, that there are sponsors 'holding' in the scene.

I already said, I can't handle weed. I seriously don't like feeling wasted/blotto/unco. I get angry with myself as soon as cross that line with booze.

[Akzle]

fuck sake you jews, get a room.

[Kiwi Graham]

Based on visiting presumably every speedway track but the one that this discussion relates to.

Besides, do you or anyone else really believe that a racer could be competing under the influence of Heroin, Cocaine, LSD, Ecstacy or Meth without it being blaringly obvious to all without the need for a test? Dunno 'bout you cunts but I can usually spot a junkie or a tweaker a lot easier than someone who's had a puff on a doob.

Fuck, is this prick still banging on!!! he must be well juiced eh?

Not happy with red repping me he's taken to PM-ing abuse now....what a cock (pot) smoker.

[Madness]

Fuck, is this prick still banging on!!! he must be well juiced eh?

Not happy with red repping me he's taken to PM-ing abuse now....what a cock (pot) smoker.

And of course there's been no abusive red-rep comments from yourself now, has there Graham? That would be a bit childish from somebody who purports to be the manager a 15 bed acute male admission and assessment unit in the regional secure hospital now, wouldn't it? (I corrected they typos in your job description too, seems you don't have to be able to spell to hold your job down).

I have a question for you. If you are correct in your assertion that all recreational Cannabis users at some stage end up in a regional secure hospital, then how the fuck do you manage with only 15 beds assuming there must be at least 10's of thousands of Cannabis users in Auckland alone? I'll tell you how, because you're full of shit, that's why. You no doubt see one extreme end of the spectrum, whilst I and many others on here alone represent the other end of the Cannabis spectrum, happily going about our daily lives, holding down proper jobs & paying taxes & enjoying meaningful lives with solid friends and families.

You sir are the epitome of Cannabis brain-washing. You simply cannot accept that Cannabis can be used responsibly without drastic effects on the user and society in general. Well Graham, you're wrong and there are thousands upon thousands of Kiwis who continue to prove you wrong each & every day.

Now fuck off back to the looney bin. Someone probably shat on the floor last night & you'll have to mop it up like a good little bitch. This is assuming you have nothing to actually add to the discussion topic here, which so far you haven't other than your attempt at rattling off a story-line from Days & Our Lives. You should get some better work stories "bro".

[scott411]

jsut to go down a different tangent,

I understand the need to get people high off recreational drugs off the circuit,

but the full drug testing regime also tests for drugs that are in normal cold and flu, or hay fever medicines, does anyone actually care if your competitor is using some hay fever meds that may have some baned PED in them? I know MNZ and SNZ sign up to the sport NZ charter, but having the same level of scrutiny as a olympic level cyclist or sprinter really necessary for the average motorcycles or speedway racer?

[Kiwi Graham]

[QUOTE=Madness;1130636406]I have a question for you. If you are correct in your assertion that all recreational Cannabis users at some stage end up in a regional secure hospital, then how the fuck do you manage with only 15 beds assuming there must be at least 10's of thousands of Cannabis users in Auckland alone? I'll tell you how, because you're full of shit, that's why. You no doubt see one extreme end of the spectrum, whilst I and many others on here alone represent the other end of the Cannabis spectrum, happily going about our daily lives, holding down proper jobs & paying taxes & enjoying meaningful lives with solid friends and families.
QUOTE]

All of our 'customers' come from the court or the prisons buddy, all of the prisons have high needs areas and run a waiting list for a bed at 'my place' Have a gander at the prison (ever increasing) muster numbers and do the maths... oh Paremoremo is investing $17 million in a new wing to look after some of your friends. I know thats a big number, but your an 'A; grade student so should comprehend ok.

I wont be replying to anymore of your drug induced myopic ramblings, Drew's doing a good job of playing you like a fool ;)

[Madness]

All of our 'customers' come from the court or the prisons buddy, all of the prisons have high needs areas and run a waiting list for a bed at 'my place' Have a gander at the prison (ever increasing) muster numbers and do the maths... oh Paremoremo is investing $17 million in a new wing to look after some of your friends. I know thats a big number, but your an 'A; grade student so should comprehend ok.

I wont be replying to anymore of your drug induced myopic ramblings, Drew's doing a good job of playing you like a fool ;)

:wavey:


Delusional comes from a Latin word meaning "deceiving." So delusional thinking is kind of like deceiving yourself by believing outrageous things. Delusional thoughts are often a sign of mental illness, but the word can also be used more loosely to describe behavior that is just not realistic.

It seems you're in the best possible place Graham. Do take care, it must be stressful living with all those demons in your head.

[Katman]

Drew's doing a good job of playing you like a fool

Are we reading the same thread?

:scratch: