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 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 25

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2588422 20-Oct-2020 15:18

MikeAqua:

The specific issue with pot is you can't distinguish between the forklift operator who is a heavy user and smoked a joint before work and the guy who had a puff or two on Friday night and now it's Monday. The first guy is likely impaired enough to cause a serious accident. The second guy is probably safe.

If cannabis abuse is anything like alcohol, I would imagine that a heavy user might be less risky after a joint. He will not be agitated from deprivation and his body will be accustomed to the hit. The second guy, who isn't accustomed at all to the stuff, is the one who will be talking to pink bunnies two days later.

Is there actually any serious research on this? This argument comes up from time to time, but is there any evidence behind it? Weed affects different people in different ways for different lengths of time, but I don't know that these differences have actually been quantified. If not, it is just more 'reefer madness' BS.

And why do we have to wait so long for the result? They had to look at the ballots to count the votes. That only took a few hours. They could't have glanced at the referenda ticks at the same time?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2588431 20-Oct-2020 15:32

How have other countries who have legalised handled workplace Cannabis/drug related issues? I know we have much more stringent laws in NZ, but there will surely be some guidance we could use?

Sidestep

1013 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2589438 20-Oct-2020 16:39

Rikkitic:

Is there actually any serious research on this? This argument comes up from time to time, but is there any evidence behind it? Weed affects different people in different ways for different lengths of time, but I don't know that these differences have actually been quantified. If not, it is just more 'reefer madness' BS.

There's a fair bit of research showing cannabis impairment is real - and can be a risk in certain jobs.
Nearly 90% of Canadian businesses that have a cannabis policy, ban cannabis consumption before and during work hours - including the company my wife works for, distributing and retailing cannabis.

An interesting thing is that predictions of stoned workers everywhere causing accidents haven't been borne out, and cannabis use after work mostly doesn’t seem to affect productivity.

Blurtie

468 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2589441 20-Oct-2020 16:43

Rikkitic:

MikeAqua:

The specific issue with pot is you can't distinguish between the forklift operator who is a heavy user and smoked a joint before work and the guy who had a puff or two on Friday night and now it's Monday. The first guy is likely impaired enough to cause a serious accident. The second guy is probably safe.

If cannabis abuse is anything like alcohol, I would imagine that a heavy user might be less risky after a joint. He will not be agitated from deprivation and his body will be accustomed to the hit. The second guy, who isn't accustomed at all to the stuff, is the one who will be talking to pink bunnies two days later.

While I can see your point @Rikkitic I'm not sure that's going to win Mike over... I'd be more inclined to say that the heavy user he has put forward as an example has an abuse problem and should probably seek help. I mean, anyone who thinks that they're okay to get high before work and not think that they're 'impaired' is dreaming. Viewing it in simplistic terms, it should be treated no differently to someone who chooses to get drunk before work... I would like to think that the vast majority of cannabis users would not do that. I would have no issues with employment policy/regulations that prohibits consumption of cannabis before work. The grey area for me is where someone has had a smoke the night before.. If this situation was compared with someone who's had a bottle of wine the night before - is the 'hangover' any worse (from an impairment/risk perspective) for a cannabis user than it is for a drinker the next day at work?

What I would like to see - if it's not out there already - is some sort of standardisation similar to what we have for alcohol, i.e. this joint/product equals X amount of a standard hit/THC/dose and information on the typical length of time it takes for the body to process a standard dose - i.e. you should be right after X hours/days/weeks or whatever. I'd be interested to hear if this idea would provide any more assurances to the employer if there's some sort of control available on the part of the user... Of course it's probably not so straight forward due to people processing things differently, but I can't see why it can't be done in theory..

edited - grammar and clarification

Sidestep

1013 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2589446 20-Oct-2020 16:58

Blurtie:

What I would like to see - if it's not out there already - is some sort of standardisation similar to what we have for alcohol, i.e. this joint/product equals X amount of a standard hit/THC/dose and information on the typical length of time it takes for the body to process a standard dose - i.e. you should be right after X hours/days/weeks or whatever. I'd be interested to hear if this idea would provide any more assurances to the employer if there's some sort of control available on the part of the user... Of course it's probably not so straight forward due to people processing things differently, but I can't see why it can't be done in theory..

In Canada guidelines on the effect of various cannabis products, the length of time impairment might last, and legal requirements - eg impaired driving laws - are all over the place.
Labelling like this is legally required.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2589770 21-Oct-2020 14:41

Rikkitic:

Is there actually any serious research on this? This argument comes up from time to time, but is there any evidence behind it? Weed affects different people in different ways for different lengths of time, but I don't know that these differences have actually been quantified. If not, it is just more 'reefer madness' BS.

There is quite bit of research - a previous poster provided link to meta-analysis. The data isn't very consistent, within and between studies. That's the problem.

I'm not sure why you would characterise a rationally founded concern with a reasonable argument behind it to 'reefer madness'. Fred is similar with his references to Moral Panic.

IMO those kind of responses makes your viewpoints look very brittle.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2589915 21-Oct-2020 17:22

‘Reefer Madness’ is a propaganda film from 1936 designed to incite moral panic about cannabis. Later it became a meme for excessive, disproportionate, hysterical, irrational fear of the drug based on ignorance and prejudice. The term is commonly used these days in that context, and that is how I used it. This is the comment you made that I was responding to:

“The specific issue with pot is you can't distinguish between the forklift operator who is a heavy user and smoked a joint before work and the guy who had a puff or two on Friday night and now it's Monday. The first guy is likely impaired enough to cause a serious accident. The second guy is probably safe.”

Unless there is research that backs up the above, it is just pure speculation without any substance. In that case it is no different from the hysterical propaganda of the film. That is the point I was making.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2590132 22-Oct-2020 09:22

MikeAqua:

There is quite bit of research - a previous poster provided link to meta-analysis. The data isn't very consistent, within and between studies. That's the problem.

I'm not sure why you would characterise a rationally founded concern with a reasonable argument behind it to 'reefer madness'. Fred is similar with his references to Moral Panic.

IMO those kind of responses makes your viewpoints look very brittle.

Meta-analysis on most cannabis research is bunkum on steroids. The legal status of cannabis hinders research. So you got data dredging, then meta-analysis where dredged data is dredged, then depending on the conclusions circulated widely by those afflicted either by "moral panic / reefer madness" claiming that there will be big problems - or by equally deluded "alternative health / medical cannabis" proponents claiming that it cures everything.

Much of it gets back to potential for "relative" harm to the individual and society. With cannabis that seems to be very low, compared to tobacco, to alcohol, and completely insignificant compared to restricted drugs (whether "legal" or not) subject to abuse.

Purdue Pharmaceuticals just pled guilty - to knowing that they acted as a pusher of a highly addictive drug that they knew caused immense harm contributing to the death of hundreds of thousands of people. The Sacklers (owners) have managed to structure their wealth and repatriate billions they made in profit to Switzerland, they've put themselves out of the reach of the law. Shareholders of the company (most probably believed the executives) pay the settlement, the Sacklers get to keep castles, executive jets, and art collections.

Yet we treat someone growing or possessing more than a few grams of cannabis as if they were El-Chapo.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2590273 22-Oct-2020 15:37

Rikkitic:

‘Reefer Madness’ is a propaganda film from 1936 designed to incite moral panic about cannabis. Later it became a meme for excessive, disproportionate, hysterical, irrational fear of the drug based on ignorance and prejudice. The term is commonly used these days in that context, and that is how I used it. This is the comment you made that I was responding to:

“The specific issue with pot is you can't distinguish between the forklift operator who is a heavy user and smoked a joint before work and the guy who had a puff or two on Friday night and now it's Monday. The first guy is likely impaired enough to cause a serious accident. The second guy is probably safe.”

Unless there is research that backs up the above, it is just pure speculation without any substance. In that case it is no different from the hysterical propaganda of the film. That is the point I was making.

I'm familiar with the reefer madness material.

There is research and it's linked in this post. There is a big difference between a genuine concern and reefer madness.

I think the only hysteria in play here is a couple of people attributing anyone's opposition to legalising cannabis to either reefer madness or moral panic. We could call that call that either reefer-madness-madness or moral panic-panic.

Mike

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2590286 22-Oct-2020 15:55

Fred99:

Meta-analysis on most cannabis research is bunkum on steroids. The legal status of cannabis hinders research. So you got data dredging, then meta-analysis where dredged data is dredged, then depending on the conclusions circulated widely by those afflicted either by "moral panic / reefer madness" claiming that there will be big problems - or by equally deluded "alternative health / medical cannabis" proponents claiming that it cures everything.

Much of it gets back to potential for "relative" harm to the individual and society. With cannabis that seems to be very low, compared to tobacco, to alcohol, and completely insignificant compared to restricted drugs (whether "legal" or not) subject to abuse.

Purdue Pharmaceuticals just pled guilty - to knowing that they acted as a pusher of a highly addictive drug that they knew caused immense harm contributing to the death of hundreds of thousands of people. The Sacklers (owners) have managed to structure their wealth and repatriate billions they made in profit to Switzerland, they've put themselves out of the reach of the law. Shareholders of the company (most probably believed the executives) pay the settlement, the Sacklers get to keep castles, executive jets, and art collections.

Yet we treat someone growing or possessing more than a few grams of cannabis as if they were El-Chapo.

I agree that particular meta-analysis is unreliable. I haven't read the source articles, but the statistical info disclosed looks rather shabby.

I struggle with relative harm arguments. I see them as a subset of moral relativism, which is a philosophy I strongly object to.

I agree that convicting people for cannabis possession is too harsh. Decriminalisation would have addressed this issue, but the supply chain would still have been illegal with all the associated problems.

If the proposed legislation had addressed impairment, I would have voted yes. It was a 45/55 call for me.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2590348 22-Oct-2020 18:37

MikeAqua:

If the proposed legislation had addressed impairment, I would have voted yes. It was a 45/55 call for me.

I think you believe that, but I don't think it is true. If you would have voted yes, then you would have, regardless of the imperfections of the referendum. You are just trying to excuse voting no. Your argument sounds so much like 'I'm not racist, but ...'

If the referendum is rejected, Jacinda Ardern has made it very clear that is the end of the matter. It won't be revisited in the foreseeable future and the very unsatisfying current situation will just carry on, with all the injustice and unfairness and illegality of that.

If the referendum is approved, the proposed changes will then undergo the entire legislative process, with select committees, public submissions, and all the opportunities for revisions and tweaks that go with that. There would be ample opportunity to address the issues you object to.

Face it, you are just a closet Mrs. Grundy who doesn't want to own up to it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gzt

17137 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2590417 22-Oct-2020 20:37

A few pages ago I posted the details of a Colorado driving limit law. There clearly is a limit to test for intoxication and is enforceable. Based on what I read about how different people with different use histories respond maybe it will not catch everyone that should be caught driving I don't know. Even so - it is a limit and it is legally enforceable. I expect the same applies to the workplace. I expect something similar will be implemented in NZ if the referendum question passes.

Some of the posts above seem to think this is completely impossible.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2593954 30-Oct-2020 14:07

As expected, the cannabis referendum has been defeated, though not by much. 53% against. This will not be the end of the matter, though. A more moderated easing of legal sanctions over time can be expected. Few will be arrested for simple possession in the future, and that is a step in the right direction. Times change. So do attitudes. Apart from that, any MP could still submit a private bill on the matter. It is not done and dusted.

Never mind there are still an awful lot of special votes to be counted.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos