Drug testing?

[onearmedbandit]

So, it's ok to consume one mind altering substance, alcohol, the night before. That's ok. But have a joint say 4 weeks ago, that makes you possibly a murderer?

Seriously, that is fucked up. Period.

[Drew]

So, it's ok to consume one mind altering substance, alcohol, the night before. That's ok. But have a joint say 4 weeks ago, that makes you possibly a murderer?

Seriously, that is fucked up. Period.

The only issue with weed, is the levels detected. Creating an official level of nil impairment, is not currently possible because the drug is illegal. So the only number anyone can set for a pass result is zero.

Far as I can see, that's the end of the story.

[Katman]

Creating an official level of nil impairment, is not currently possible because the drug is illegal.

No Drew, a test for actual impairment is not being looked for simply because the drug is illegal.

Testing for traces instead of impairment is simply the easy option.

[haydes55]

No Drew, a test for actual impairment is not being looked for simply because the drug is illegal.



Testing for traces instead of impairment is simply the easy option.

Exactly, it is the easy option, and why should an official body pander to druggies?

[Katman]

Exactly, it is the easy option, and why should an official body pander to druggies?

Ah, so it's simply about you (and the official bodies) feeling morally superior then?

And it certainly seems like they're pandering to them already considering they don't seem at all interested in testing for legal highs.

[budda]

ah, so it's simply about you (and the official bodies) feeling morally superior then?

And it certainly seems like they're pandering to them already considering they don't seem at all interested in testing for legal highs.

o.f.f.s. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Katman]

o.f.f.s. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for your contribution.

Are you saying that they do test for legal highs or are you just showing us that you know three letters of the alphabet?

[unstuck]

The drug testing continues. Well done NZ, we are putting out some pretty top quality drugs at the moment, keep up the good work.

[haydes55]

Ah, so it's simply about you (and the official bodies) feeling morally superior then?

And it certainly seems like they're pandering to them already considering they don't seem at all interested in testing for legal highs.

I'm lost. How is that making anyone superior? It's about removing drugs from a dangerous sport. You are right about removing legal highs. I'm trying to find out info on that.

Where your logic flaws me is that because legal highs mightn't be picked up we shouldn't test for weed? I'd rather test for 90% of drugs than 20% of drugs.

It's not ideal, but better than just letting it slide and putting competitors in undue risk.

I don't give a shit if anyone wants to follow Amy Winehouse and take care of themselves, but as soon as other people have their lives in your hands, you have a legal and moral obligation to do all within your power to take your responsibility with due care. Taking any drugs shows you have no care for others lives.

[Katman]

Where your logic flaws me is that because legal highs mightn't be picked up we shouldn't test for weed? I'd rather test for 90% of drugs than 20% of drugs.

Do you just read words without even trying to figure out what they mean?

I have never said that you shouldn't test for weed. I have said that if safety is your concern here then testing for impairment is the logical answer. The swab test that you mentioned in the first post should be the starting point in testing for THC if safety is indeed your primary concern. Testing for traces in urine (regardless of how long ago the use may have been) is simply taking the morally superior/easy option.

[unstuck]

Taking any drugs shows you have no care for others lives.

Please explain how me getting stoned makes me not care about others lives????

Not that I do care about others lives you understand, cos I could give a flying fuck about others lives.

[jasonu]

Testing for traces instead of impairment is simply the easy option.

No, the easy option is if you intend to partake in motorcycle racing, don't partake in doobie smoking.

[Katman]

No, the easy option is if you intend to partake in motorcycle racing, don't partake in doobie smoking.

If a motorcycle racer has zero impairment from smoking a doobie 4 weeks ago, what concern should it be of anyone else's?

[haydes55]

If a motorcycle racer has zero impairment from smoking a doobie 4 weeks ago, what concern should it be of anyone else's?

If a test shows traces of THC, what concern should it be of how much is present?

Zero is the number below 1. It is also the limit of any drug whilst other peoples lives are in your hands. ZERO. Can you count to zero? (Ironically I think it's technically impossible to count to zero).

[jasonu]

If a motorcycle racer has zero impairment from smoking a doobie 4 weeks ago, what concern should it be of anyone else's?

The problem/issue you are stuck on is the test doesn't or can't show impairment, only the presence of certain drugs that can cause impairment.
If the test is positive maybe they are impaired, maybe not. Why take the chance. If it is in the rules and the rules are available to everyone and the rules state zero tolerance then there is no excuse or valid reason to show a positive test result and expect to race on a track with other people that tested negative.
These are the rules all competitors agree to. Positive test result = fuck off.