vexxxboy:

 

yep but sometimes it feels really good

 

Maybe because you're immature?

vexxxboy:

 

yep but sometimes it feels really good

 

Like good quality weed?

(Or are you just trolling - which is a breach of FUG ?)

sen8or: If it was a choice between synthetic or actual, I'd happily choose actual, like Fred99, have seen the harm caused by chemicals masquerading as dope.  The argument for/against synthetics doesn't belong in the same argument for/against actual, except for the fact that they are both mind altering substances

vexxxboy:

 

it's not spite , i think of it more like Karma.

 

This reminds me of the flag vote, people were voting against it out of pure meanness too. Here we are reaping a little of that shared rotteness, making NZ worse as a result.

I would ask you to please read the proposal and vote the way you feel makes sense for NZ. This (voting out of spite) only ends up worse for both me and you.

EDIT: Added clarity.

Rikkitic:

 

You should vote your beliefs. If you are against legalisation, that is fine. We live in a democracy. If you just want to piss people off, that seems pretty immature to me.

 

What if he believes in pissing people off?

I employ people to work in environments with an elevated level of risk.  Consequently, there is drug testing in our workplace.  If cannabis is detected, because it's illegal that's a serious misconduct investigation and disciplinary action up to and including dismissal is a possible outcome.

If cannabis is legalised, impairment has to be demonstrated, as is currently the case with alcohol.  With alcohol that's easy, there are legally established impairment levels, based on breathalyser results.

There doesn't seem to be a widely accepted impairment level for THC. The police use a field sobriety test.  IMO a test like that conducted by an employer won't stand up in an employment dispute. 

The cannabis debate underscored for me the challenges legalisation poses for employers.  If I am overzealous I risk a PG under the ERA - if we lose reinstatement is the default remedy.  If I am under-zealous I risk being prosecuted as an individual under the HSWA.   Under HSWA I can be fined a life-ruining amounts and/or imprisoned.  If I get it right, I'm golden.

So, with my employer hat on, I'm going to tick no.

Nice try to invent yourself a reason to vote "no" - but you can make testing for THC a condition of employment just as you do now (and is used in countries and US States that have legalised it etc.)

Breaking news! The Minister of Justice admits the War on Drugs has failed! (Newshub 'exclusive')

Fred99:

 

Nice try to invent yourself a reason to vote "no" - but you can make testing for THC a condition of employment just as you do now (and is used in countries and US States that have legalised it etc.)

 

It's really not that simple. NZ Employment law in this area is fairly tricky.

Unless you are testing for cause you can only test those in safety sensitive positions. You also have to demonstrate that there is a safety risk by impairment.

The impairment question is very valid as the urine tests for THC don't do that. Until it gets tested in court no one can really say definitively what the courts will rule.

I found this interesting.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/do-cannabis-hangovers-impair-you-at-work

Rikkitic:

 

Breaking news! The Minister of Justice admits the War on Drugs has failed! (Newshub 'exclusive')

 

No sh*t? People like taking drugs and will do it even if it's illegal? What a revelation from Newshub!

(Not directed at you Rikkitic, I'm just tired of nonsense this week)

Handle9:

 

Fred99:

 

Nice try to invent yourself a reason to vote "no" - but you can make testing for THC a condition of employment just as you do now (and is used in countries and US States that have legalised it etc.)

 

 

It's really not that simple. NZ Employment law in this area is fairly tricky.

 

The "legal status" of the drug makes no difference.  

He had made his mind up long ago, so it's entirely blather probably hoisted from some partisan website.

Handle9:

 

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/do-cannabis-hangovers-impair-you-at-work

 

Thanks, that was useful to read.

networkn:

 

Handle9:

 

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/do-cannabis-hangovers-impair-you-at-work

 

 

Thanks, that was useful to read.

 

Most of it's an advertorial for the owner of a workplace drug testing company.

But whatever...

https://www.employment.govt.nz/workplace-policies/tests-and-checks/drugs-alcohol-and-work/

https://eab.business.govt.nz/employmentagreementbuilder/generalprovisions/drugAlcoholTesting

Fred99:

 

Most of it's an advertorial for the owner of a workplace drug testing company.

 

But whatever...

 

Who opposes legalization.. But whatever... :)

networkn:

 

Fred99:

 

Most of it's an advertorial for the owner of a workplace drug testing company.

 

But whatever...

 

 

Who opposes legalization.. But whatever... :)

 

Well of course he does.  He makes money out of that attitude - promoting "moral panic".

Anyway, my main gripe with the position espoused that "legalisation means I can't take action against a drugged-out employee if the drug is legal" is a BS argument.

It's not for a middle manager on a fishing boat to "fire someone" because because in their inexpert judgement the person "broke the law" when that hasn't been proven and it's not up to him to decide.  A positive test is evidence, but contestable and not infallible. So if he thinks he can fire people (instant dismissal) now merely because in his very inexpert opinion they "broke the law" he's dreaming.  He probably can fire them now for a positive test under employment law, and of course that should also be contestable. 

Some poor chap - engineering contractor at Marsden Point - got sacked a few years ago for a positive test for opiates.  He'd eaten four slices of Freyas poppy seed toast for breakfast. 

Here's his website.  Please don't tell me he looks and sounds like an "opiate abuser" and was looking for excuses - ROFL.

Maybe @dejadeadnz can comment.  IANAL, but I'd be very wary of assuming the role of policeman, judge, and executioner in an employment matter.  As it stands now (with cannabis illegal) my guess would be that if you "dobbed in" an employee to the police because some drug testing business enterprise gave them a positive test result for THC, the police would laugh at you.  So if you fired them on the basis of them having done something "criminal" without them being convicted, it could get expensive.