Nope to dope or toot toot?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Nope to dope or toot toot?

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 25

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#2586149 16-Oct-2020 08:36

The big can of worms that will be opened up in regards to employment matters is one of the principal reasons why I support a no vote. I really wouldn't want to be a test case for an employees actions whilst he had legal THC in his / her system. ERA in one corner looking to pound on you if you do take some sort of action, worksafe in the other if anything goes wrong because you didn't take action.

If you are happy for a sparked up electrician to come and rewire your house risking all manner of electrical hazards, thats your right, but I'll take a hard pass

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2586161 16-Oct-2020 09:14

sen8or:

The big can of worms

There isn't one. You've been sucked in by "moral panic" false arguments.

Sidestep

1013 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2586167 16-Oct-2020 09:22

MikeAqua:

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.

In Canada, where I am – and many other countries - there's a legally accepted, and testable driving impairment level for THC.
Here there are no official THC breathalysers (yet.. a couple are waiting for approval) but saliva, blood or urine test results are accepted.

When recreational cannabis was legalised here in 2018, new legislation - similar to NZ's proposed 'Drug Driving Bill' - was introduced, allowing police officers to demand that a driver provide an oral fluid sample to be tested with an ADS (Approved Drug Screening) device at the roadside. A 'fail' or 'positive' oral fluid roadside test allows the police to request a much more accurate (at lower levels) blood test.

The NZ legislation – which is now before a Select Committee - proposes that “drivers who fail two consecutive oral fluid tests would incur an infringement penalty, aligned to the drink driving infringement penalty”.. Tests are likely to include THC (cannabis), methamphetamine, opiates, cocaine, MDMA (ecstasy), and benzodiazepines, and like Canada, harsher penalties are likely when testing shows drugs combined with alcohol.

It's also proposed in NZ there will be 'cut-off thresholds' set in the oral fluid devices, as a concern of many submitters has been false positives through accidental or passive exposure or residual levels of drugs.

The oral testing devices themselves have been proven very accurate above certain levels - and the combination of both threshold trigger levels and failing a second test would appear to make the chance of a false positive vanishingly small, even then you'd also have the option of undertaking an evidential blood test.

Canada allows adult drivers 80 mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood.
I think NZ's was about the same until recently reduced to 50mg/100ml.

Canada then reduces the amount of alcohol allowed in combination with cannabis: "The prohibited levels of alcohol and cannabis, when found in combination, is 50mg or more of alcohol per 100ml blood and 2.5 ng or more of THC per ml of blood."

Other drugs can be reliably tested for, and there's officially a zero tolerance:
"Having any detectable amount of LSD, psilocybin, psilocin ("magic mushrooms"), ketamine, PCP, cocaine, methamphetamine or 6-mam (a metabolite of heroin) in your system within two hours of driving is also prohibited.
The prohibited level for GHB is 5mg or more per litre of blood, since the body can naturally produce low levels of this drug."

What's interesting is in practical oral test application the 'cut off threshold' or trigger limits are quite a bit higher than limits in legislation which, as in New Zealand, was due to concerns about the accuracy of oral fluid testing devices at low levels.

Even though the legal limit's (1) between 2 and 5 ng per ml of blood within two hours of driving - a $1,000 fine, and (2) Over 5 ng - a summary or indictable offence, they're actually set to fail a person who has 25 ng of THC or more per ml of oral fluid. Likewise Cocaine 50 ng/mL and Methamphetamine 50 ng/mL

This gives the driver more leeway and means you would have to be grossly intoxicated to fail, and also means a roadside fail will almost certainly result in a blood test fail.

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#2586172 16-Oct-2020 09:34

Fred99:

sen8or:

The big can of worms

There isn't one. You've been sucked in by "moral panic" false arguments.

If you can't see the precarious position that an employer is likely to be in, then no logic or reasoning will persuade you otherwise. Have you had on an employers hat before?

Its not "moral panic", its called common sense and a measured approach to risk.

If you are happy for a sparked up electrician to come and wire your house, I can recommend a few, just be wary when you switch on any appliances.......

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2586180 16-Oct-2020 10:06

sen8or:

If you are happy for a sparked up electrician to come and wire your house, I can recommend a few, just be wary when you switch on any appliances.......

Moral panic. Why the blind assumption that every tradie is going to show up for work stoned? How many electricians wire houses while drunk? What makes you think that the legal status of any drug prevents people from using it? Most people are sensible. I don't see the issue here.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#2586181 16-Oct-2020 10:11

As I said, a measured approach to risk.

My assumption that people will turn up to work is only looking at the other side of the coin that no one will. I am certain that the truth / reality will be somewhere in the middle, but when it comes to employer risk, I'll always err on the side of caution.

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#2586183 16-Oct-2020 10:20

Rikkitic:

sen8or:

If you are happy for a sparked up electrician to come and wire your house, I can recommend a few, just be wary when you switch on any appliances.......

Moral panic. Why the blind assumption that every tradie is going to show up for work stoned? How many electricians wire houses while drunk? What makes you think that the legal status of any drug prevents people from using it? Most people are sensible. I don't see the issue here.

As for the legal status of a drug preventing use?

I'd like to assume that most people are law abiding citizens. Sure, people will take liberties with some laws they deem oppressive and/or irrelevant but on the whole, few people want trouble with the law and/or criminal convictions.

By making cannabis legal, there is likely to be a portion of society that will now partake that otherwise wouldn't have.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2586186 16-Oct-2020 10:36

sen8or:

By making cannabis legal, there is likely to be a portion of society that will now partake that otherwise wouldn't have.

Partake does not equate to abuse. You are conflating the two.

Again, using alcohol as an example, because it is the best one we have, people who enjoy a wine with dinner do not come to work drunk. Why assume someone who enjoys a joint would be any different? It is about the person, not the substance.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2586187 16-Oct-2020 10:39

sen8or:

As for the legal status of a drug preventing use?

I'd like to assume that most people are law abiding citizens. Sure, people will take liberties with some laws they deem oppressive and/or irrelevant but on the whole, few people want trouble with the law and/or criminal convictions.

By making cannabis legal, there is likely to be a portion of society that will now partake that otherwise wouldn't have.

Do you mean a portion of the 20% of NZers who haven't tried dope? Yep, the fact dope is illegal has certainly been a huge barrier to its use in this country...

Re an earlier comment about expected increase uptake in usage amongst young people - here's a quote from the We Do group in relation to Canada (yep, I get that there's no assurance the same will happen here, but certainly interesting):

Stats Canada (the counterpart to our own Statistics New Zealand) has been publishing great data on the legalisation experience, which is summarised in this recent before-and-after-legalisation report. Short version: since legalisation, overall use of cannabis in Canada has risen slightly (2%) – but that increase is entirely among people over 25, who are at least risk. Cannabis use by adolescents, on the other hand, has fallen by nearly half since legalisation.

Their website's worth a look, especially to provide a useful counter for those who otherwise will be voting 'no' simply on gut, as opposed to even contemplating the rationale for and evidence behind a 'yes' vote: https://www.wedosupport.nz/

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2586190 16-Oct-2020 10:46

Here's a recent post from Russell Brown (one of the people behind 'We Do'); interesting to see the potential involvement (and source) of o/s funding for the 'no' camp...

https://publicaddress.net/hardnews/the-long-road-to-yes/

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2586252 16-Oct-2020 12:22

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.)

I wouldn't need a reason to vote yes or no. I could vote on a coin-flip if I wanted to. However, I take the responsibility seriously.

I have a genuine concern. The issue is not with requiring a test, that's easy. It's how to interpret a quantitative result if cannabis is legal.

My understanding (based on professional advice) is at the moment employers don't have to prove impairment, where a workplace drug test is non-negative for THC.

I know of specific instances (as recently as last week) where employees (not mine, thankfully) have had non-negative, post-accident drug tests due to THC levels being exceeded.

My understanding (based on professional advice) is that if cannabis legal impairment will have to be proven. While some countries may have laws on impairment levels, we don't at present. The science on impairment is inconsistent. There is work to do, still in that area. So I don't believe there is a robust basis for arguing an impairment level for THC at present in NZ.

If an appropriate impairment level was to be legislated in NZ, that would solve the problem. But that isn't simple a level that was set too high would be a huge problem, because it would allow impaired people to operate in the workplace, legally. A level set low would capture people who had consumed, but were not impaired.

This isn't a "moral panic". I don't see cannabis as a moral issue. I used it myself occasionally up to about 2007.

I do see it as a safety issue in certain circumstances. Employers have a legal (and ethical) duty to ensure the risk of harm is not increased by people being impaired in the workplace. They also have a legal (and ethical) duty to be fair employers, act reasonably, in good faith etc. I don't believe we have the information (yet) to walk the line between those two requirements.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2586254 16-Oct-2020 12:32

sen8or:

If you can't see the precarious position that an employer is likely to be in, then no logic or reasoning will persuade you otherwise. Have you had on an employers hat before?

Its not "moral panic", its called common sense and a measured approach to risk.

If you are happy for a sparked up electrician to come and wire your house, I can recommend a few, just be wary when you switch on any appliances.......

It absolutely is moral panic.

You've got no evidence that there's greater chances of a "sparked up" (your lame words) electrician coming to wire up your house if cannabis was decriminalised than there is now (with widespread illegal use).

In any case some sparky doing shonky work won't last long - they'll lose their license.

The legal status of cannabis doesn't impact the right to negotiate and include drug testing - including for cannabis - in an employment contract.

As it is now, if you *think" someone broke the law now, and that gives you the right to fire them, you deserve to be sued in the employment court if there's no conviction for the alleged crime.

The war on drugs is an abject failure, does not solve issues with drug abuse, does not protect your children, has created global cartels of organised crime, funded wars, corrupted police forces, politicians, and all the meantime drug use has been increasing.

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#2586270 16-Oct-2020 13:29

Fred99:

sen8or:

If you can't see the precarious position that an employer is likely to be in, then no logic or reasoning will persuade you otherwise. Have you had on an employers hat before?

Its not "moral panic", its called common sense and a measured approach to risk.

If you are happy for a sparked up electrician to come and wire your house, I can recommend a few, just be wary when you switch on any appliances.......

It absolutely is moral panic.

You've got no evidence that there's greater chances of a "sparked up" (your lame words) electrician coming to wire up your house if cannabis was decriminalised than there is now (with widespread illegal use).

In any case some sparky doing shonky work won't last long - they'll lose their license.

The legal status of cannabis doesn't impact the right to negotiate and include drug testing - including for cannabis - in an employment contract.

As it is now, if you *think" someone broke the law now, and that gives you the right to fire them, you deserve to be sued in the employment court if there's no conviction for the alleged crime.

The war on drugs is an abject failure, does not solve issues with drug abuse, does not protect your children, has created global cartels of organised crime, funded wars, corrupted police forces, politicians, and all the meantime drug use has been increasing.

You can't prove a negative and you can't prove something that hasn't actually happened, you can only speculate and make assumptions.

Every other month it seems, a "study" is coming out about something, be it coffee, wine, "fats" etc contradicting a previous study, one minute its the source of all evil, the next its a medical miracle and then back to the source of all evil again. Which one do you believe? Most likely the one that reinforces your own views.

If an electrician is impaired enough to screw up at their job, losing their license should be the last consideration, I think there are other consequences far worse.....

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2586271 16-Oct-2020 13:29

MikeAqua:

My understanding (based on professional advice) is that if cannabis legal impairment will have to be proven.

... or a standard level at which impairment is determined and accepted to be significant. Alcohol "impairment" starts at well below the legal driving limit (for adult drivers) We seem to consider that risk acceptable.

Many prescription medicines also cause impairment, the level of impairment varies from person to person. Even the law about "illegal" drug use also includes "legal" prescription medicine.

How do workplaces deal with that - operating machinery the morning after a booze binge, after taking a sleeping pill the night before, or working on a boat after taking a sea-sickness pill? Do they not care because no "moral panic"?

Then there's people who drive when sick with the flu, or judgement impaired because they're angry idiots.

Anyway - sure - these laws need to be sorted out as cannabis is decriminalised. It's probably inevitably going to happen regardless of our referendum, Biden/Harris are promising federal decriminalisation, that makes their position as major influencer of UN conventions "The Failed War on Drugs" untenable if cannabis isn't also removed from the UN Schedule. It's legal in many US states, Canada, ACT, Georgia, Uruguay It's decriminalised already in most of Central/South America, most of Western Europe (exl France, Germany, Poland), Italy, Moldavia, Estonia, Israel, SA and NT Australia, and still illegal but unenforced in many other countries.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2586273 16-Oct-2020 13:34

sen8or:

Which one do you believe? Most likely the one that reinforces your own views.

I suggest that if you're (apparently) confused by the evidence, then don't vote in the referendum.

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 25