.I'd like to know what happens when a person is dismissed for being stoned
They have a stand down period before the recieve the benefit
YesWill they automatically be ineligible for collecting the dole?
Why would the xrime rate rise. All the opinion that has been expressed by the "pro cannibis" brigade quite clearly announces that smoking pot does not lead to a life of crime.Are you prepared for any fall out? Will you be happy IF crime stats rise and you have to pay more tax, or the country has to borrow more money, because the crime rate rises?
Rubbish, remember, pot smokers are non violent.Will you be at ease with yourself because a desperate person, who would have otherwise been stoned on the couch (your words), injures or even kills someone because they don't have enough money to feed themselves or their family (they are going from some money to none)?
They aint gonna do it, they are too mellowBecause I will hold you all responsible as accessory's to the crimes committed. That may mean nothing to you, which only goes to underpin your complete lack of understanding in regards to the bigger picture.
Righto, so you expect an employeer to continue to employ a person who fails a drug test and potentially risk others lives, maybe even your own familes in case of what the said smoker may do if they loose their job???One way to fix it.....dont come to work impaired......relatively simple to say, apparantly too hard to grasp.
Do you know that if you knowingly allow a person to work that is impaired or judged to be impaired by way of a drug test and they cause an incident or accident, even if you are only a work mate or an employeer, YOU can be deemed to have been a contributing factor to the result and can (many have been) be charged with negligence and fined or jailed. Heaps of company directors and managers have been prosecuted in this manner when they didnt have sufficient means of ensuring workplace safety....like drug tests. Why do you think they all do them now?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by skippa1
. I agree that people should have more concern for those around them, especially in the working environment, but accidents don't just happen to people who are impaired and those who are impaired aren't always involved in accident. In other words, prevention doesn't always work and the fact that we can't see into the future and people who aren't impaired have accidents mootifies your argument. I understand ye olde not stopping someone from doing something "dangerous" and them dying is akin to receiving an assist for the darwin award... hence why I'll hold you all responsible 
, but I see no reason why I should enforce it just because of a rule. Did you see the story in the states of the life saver who saved a life and then got sacked because he left his area to save someone in an area he wasn't allowed in? What would have happened had he watched the guy die? The argument of prevention is useless and pathetic without common sense and only the weak minded would spout such utter shite under the misguided notion that it will ALWAYS save lives.
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
personal responsibility card alert... you're not allowed to get stoned because of will hamper your chances of getting a job and it may also result in you losing any money you have. Personal responsibility removed by legislation, all is well 
. Shutting the door after the horse has bolted eh? yup, that's worked well for people getting pissed and driving their cars, rape, murder, war and some even come with exclusions depending on who you are and what your position is. Priceless.
... speechless with laughter here. Sounds like a textbook to me, one that people read and swallow in the hope that it'll make them a different person.
.
. Tis a waste of money and of employee potential to screen for drugs. It does not mean that the person will take drugs at work or indeed mean that the person will be impaired during their working day due to after effects.
Bookmarks