Free the weed, dope, cannabis, hooch, Fri 4 Feb, outside Auckland District Courts

[Berries]

It remained lawful to either not employ, or to dismiss an employee who returned a positive drugs test, if workplace health and safety were at issue, eg operating heavy machinery.

Definitely agree with your last point. If you are affected to such an extent that you cannot operate machinery, or yourself, at work then you should be shown the door. Also agree that you don't have to employ someone if you don't want to. But to dismiss someone on a Monday for something they did on Friday or Saturday night, which has absolutely no affect on their capacity to carry out their work on the Monday seems to me a bit extreme.

[PrincessBandit]

Hahaha, haven't read the thread but had to smile that the headline OP has managed to get 6 pages worth of comments in less than 12 hours. While other threads have no doubt managed the same traffic in the same time the content is usually a tad more controversial or heated than wacky backy...

[Berries]

and you'd expect most users to be too wasted to be able to type.

[Smifffy]

Definitely agree with your last point. If you are affected to such an extent that you cannot operate machinery, or yourself, at work then you should be shown the door. Also agree that you don't have to employ someone if you don't want to. But to dismiss someone on a Monday for something they did on Friday or Saturday night, which has absolutely no affect on their capacity to carry out their work on the Monday seems to me a bit extreme.

If it is detected in the bloodstream, or whatever, at a level above that which has been proven to cause impairment then it doesn't matter when it was smoked does it?

If it no longer has an effect then it should have been metabolised and eliminated from the body, Shirley?

If it's still detected 3 days later, then that kind of makes a mockery of the claim of no longer term effects n'est ce pas?

[Berries]

I don't know. From experience the effects disappear way quicker than alcohol. It depends on whether the tests are to detect impairment, which is what it should be, or whether it is looking at evidence of consumption. Evidence of consumption has no correlation with impairment, which is my issue with drug testing at work.

at a level above that which has been proven to cause impairment

Honest question. Have they determined that level for cannabis ?

[Edbear]

Definitely agree with your last point. If you are affected to such an extent that you cannot operate machinery, or yourself, at work then you should be shown the door. Also agree that you don't have to employ someone if you don't want to. But to dismiss someone on a Monday for something they did on Friday or Saturday night, which has absolutely no affect on their capacity to carry out their work on the Monday seems to me a bit extreme.

The problem of health and safety at work is a complex one and involves, to my mind, more than just illicit drugs. Many prescription medicines caution about driving or operating machinery while taking them and yet no-one "polices" that. I reckon very few who take them would take heed of the warnings given, either.

I certainly agree that anyone under the influence of any substance that places others at risk should be stood down until they are no longer a risk, but while not in favour of legalising cannabis, I also believe this issue should be addressed as well. I don't automatically agree with dismissing someone for being stoned at work but perhaps would a penalty, such as having time off without pay or sick leave.

Everyone has talked about education, but it is notable that those pro-cannabis do not believe it is harmful in any way, so what would they educate about it but that it is fine to use.

[mashman]

I wouldn't mind if it was legalised, on three conditions:

Gets my vote although they'd need a better test for the work one. Although i'd happily give up my job and open up a "cafe" .

[Edbear]

Hahaha, haven't read the thread but had to smile that the headline OP has managed to get 6 pages worth of comments in less than 12 hours. While other threads have no doubt managed the same traffic in the same time the content is usually a tad more controversial or heated than wacky backy...

LOL!!! Unusually, for a controversial topic, (and for KB..), it has remained relatively civilised.

[mashman]

Everyone has talked about education, but it is notable that those pro-cannabis do not believe it is harmful in any way, so what would they educate about it but that it is fine to use.

You vud not approof ov my messods... goes for alcohol too school, teachers, parents, kids, drink, "smoke", discussion... instant supervised education.

[Edbear]

You vud not approof ov my messods... goes for alcohol too school, teachers, parents, kids, drink, "smoke", discussion... instant supervised education.

I think open discussion is valuable and desirable but putting both sides forward. Based on medical science, I believe cannabis use is not a "good thing" and as has been admitted here, the purpose of using it is to get stoned, which is not a good enough argument for me and obviously for the legislators as well.

I do believe that it is a "good thing" to look for beneficial uses for plants and support research to that end, but getting stoned, high, blotto, legless or any other term you like, is not a good reason to legalise anything that causes that to occur.

[mashman]

I think open discussion is valuable and desirable but putting both sides forward. Based on medical science, I believe cannabis use is not a "good thing" and as has been admitted here, the purpose of using it is to get stoned, which is not a good enough argument for me and obviously for the legislators as well.

I do believe that it is a "good thing" to look for beneficial uses for plants and support research to that end, but getting stoned, high, blotto, legless or any other term you like, is not a good reason to legalise anything that causes that to occur.

So because it;s not a good idea it shouldn't be legalised... I think we've done that one to death and it's not a valid reason given that people know the risks and are going to do it anyway. I'd much rather have kids who are educated than killing themselves because they have no limits.

[Berries]

I don't automatically agree with dismissing someone for being stoned at work but perhaps would a penalty, such as having time off without pay or sick leave.

Nah, sack them. Anyone who turns up at work in an unfit state is no use and obviously doesn't care about the job. One strike and you are out.

Everyone has talked about education, but it is notable that those pro-cannabis do not believe it is harmful in any way, so what would they educate about it but that it is fine to use.

I believe it is harmful if you have too much at too young an age - another reason for legalising it and controlling supply, as much as any government can. Education could revolve about the actual affects (I have never seen spaceships for instance), precautions you should perhaps take, and IMHO, education about other mind altering drugs that you might be tempted by that are addictive and have more far reaching consequences. The problem is people try cannabis, find out it is not the evil substance it is made out to be and from that point on dismiss the propaganda. That can't be a good thing if you are concerned about the health and well being of the people.

I believe cannabis use is not a "good thing" and as has been admitted here, the purpose of using it is to get stoned, which is not a good enough argument for me and obviously for the legislators as well.

Depends what you mean by stoned. Relaxed, at ease, happy ? Gibbering like a monkey ? The word stoned has many connotations depending on who is using it. What is wrong with being a bit happier than you may normally be, with having an enjoyable evening away from pressures that life may be putting on you ? Particularly when that 'escape' does not cause any problems to anyone else. To me it just seems like such a waste of money (Government) and a waste of a life (convictions for what exactly ?) decided on by people who have never partook themselves.

Anyway, my bottle of red is long finished. I don't know whether to drive to the offy for another bottle and risk killing someone because I am over the limit or get caught at a checkpoint and lose my licence and job, or whether to just nip outside and punch my neighbour in the face because his dog is barking. And then burn his house down. And see to his wife. Decisions decisions. If I was legally allowed to have a smoke in the privacy of my own home my only decision would revolve around whether or not I should have Worcestershire sauce on my cheese on toast before I go to bed or some homemade chilli sauce. Where's the harm in that, and more importantly, what the fuck does it have to do with anybody else ?

[EJK]

As long as no one gets raped.

[Usarka]

You're missing the point, mate. Smoking, whether tobacco or cannabis, has no benign level. Smoking is automatically bad for the health and no-one can argue that. I've made the point that there are properties in cannabis that can be extracted for health benefits. There may be properties as yet unheard of in tobacco that can be extracted and used in a benign way as well.

So are you ok for in principle for cannabis to be legal to be used via a vaporiser or eaten? Both of these methods negate the ill effects of smoking.


Cool, next.

PS - And if your argument is of the details of implementing/enforcing such a law, there are similar laws in effect now. Eg, you can own poppies but you're not allowed to extract the stuff. You can have a presciption of morphine but you can't cook it and shoot it up or sell it.

[avgas]

Anybody who knows me knows my views on smoking in general. I consider the tobacco companies, okay the people running them, promoting smoking and marketing it, to be murderers as they knowingly produce and market a product that will kill half those who use it as intended and make miserable the lives of most of the remaining half. You may have noticed my posts have included tobacco.

I hate people who do weddings for the same reason