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 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 25

Networkn
32246 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2586274 16-Oct-2020 13:36

So given this is a non-binding referendum, what is the scope for the Greens (or whomever), if a No vote comes back, to pivot to decriminisation?

sen8or

1778 posts

Uber Geek

#2586285 16-Oct-2020 13:57

Fred99:

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.

What makes you think I'm confused, you seem to have ignored the part that "evidence" seems to change much like the wind, you can only choose what evidence you want to believe.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18605 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2586286 16-Oct-2020 13:58

Kick me if I'm wrong, but I think Jacinda said that legislation would be introduced that would then be subjected to the whole legislative process, including public submissions, and the end result could well be something other than full legalisation, or legalisation within the currently proposed boundaries.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sen8or

1778 posts

Uber Geek

#2586288 16-Oct-2020 13:59

Pivot to decriminalization would be a sensible first step and would formalise what happens (for the most part) among police now

networkn

Networkn
32246 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2586294 16-Oct-2020 14:13

sen8or:

Pivot to decriminalization would be a sensible first step and would formalise what happens (for the most part) among police now

The problem is, that this makes the referendum a waste of time and money (shocker) because they essentially asked the wrong question(s).

There isn't clarity within the existing question structure, to define who supports what, it was a (stupid) all or nothing scenario.

I can understand people being upset if they pivot to decriminization, if they opposed both types of loosening of current restrictions.

sen8or

1778 posts

Uber Geek

#2586298 16-Oct-2020 14:30

Something proposed by our current Govt wasn't properly thought through and simply done as an attention / vote grabber? Surely you jest!

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2586378 16-Oct-2020 16:07

sen8or:

What makes you think I'm confused, you seem to have ignored the part that "evidence" seems to change much like the wind, you can only choose what evidence you want to believe.

Because most of the "evidence" you cite is bunkum - coming from the moral panic brigade. I've consistently stated my opposition to a referendum. It's turning out like the stupid "anti-smacking" referendum - with people expressing opinions based on complete misunderstanding of the consequence of the proposed revision of a stupid, failing law.

The referendum is for supporting or not the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.

That highlighted part seems to go over the heads of many of the people arguing for "no". They think the world is going to turn into an orgiastic frenzy of reefer madness. It isn't.

You're attempting to create moral panic with your repeated lame "sparked up electrician" scare tactic. It's not happening now. (My son's an electrician - and nope, he doesn't smoke weed despite it being extremely freely available in his social circles)

Backblaze

Backblaze Unlimited Backup. World’s easiest cloud backup. Get peace of mind knowing your files are backed up securely in the cloud (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2586379 16-Oct-2020 16:12

sen8or:

Something proposed by our current Govt wasn't properly thought through and simply done as an attention / vote grabber? Surely you jest!

You really haven't been paying attention huh...

A tip is that if the referendum passes, then the legislation is worked on (the "control" part), and representative democratic processes take over.

That's up for the next government to start work on, no point the present government drafting a bill before the election.

Handle9

11267 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2586383 16-Oct-2020 16:16

That's not correct. The bill is drafted. If the referendum is passed then it would be introduced to the house under a Labour led government - they've already said they would do this.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2586386 16-Oct-2020 16:23

Handle9: That's not correct. The bill is drafted. If the referendum is passed then it would be introduced to the house under a Labour led government - they've already said they would do this.

True - my mistake - it's "drafted" - I should have said "in final form ready to be enacted as law".

The Bill's main purpose is to reduce cannabis-related harm to individuals, families/whānau and communities.

Handle9

11267 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2586387 16-Oct-2020 16:25

Fair enough. I'd expect topics like the employment one to be raised through the select committee process and some changes made as a result.

gzt

16997 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2586418 16-Oct-2020 19:18

MikeAqua: 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.

This is interesting. I wonder what the legal rationale is for this at the present time. Presumably it's exactly the same situation for alcohol at present?

nztim

3756 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

TEAMnetwork

Subscriber

#2586419 16-Oct-2020 19:21

Yes to weed (no I don't smoke it but it wastes police resources and will generate Tax Revenue)

No to EOL (not enough protections IMHO)

Any views expressed on these forums are my own and don't necessarily reflect those of my employer.

gzt

16997 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2586739 17-Oct-2020 19:45

Norml's supporting submission on driver testing based on Colorado law

Norml: We suggest considering the level adopted by the US state of Colorado which is 6ng of THC per ml of blood, and the work of Grotenhermen et al, who noted: “A comparison of meta-analyses of experimental studies on the impairment of driving-relevant skills by alcohol or cannabis suggests that a THC concentration in the serum of 7-10 ng/ml is correlated with an impairment comparable to that caused by a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05%. Thus, a suitable numerical limit for THC in serum may fall in that range.

Norml are suggesting a three step process:
1. Roadside impairment test either physical or app based
2. Saliva test
3. Evidential blood test

Considering we have virtually no testing at the present time as far as I'm aware this would be an improvement.

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#2588386 20-Oct-2020 14:20

Fred99:

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.

A typical policy might be that if you appear boozed or hungover AND you are in safety critical role/workplace you can be breath tested (businesses have calibrated devices and trained users). There is an accepted impairment level so it's easy. I know businesses who have a gatehouse and breath test every worker and visitor prior to admission to the site.

Prescription meds - if there is a concern the prescribing Dr's advice is taken - e.g. for some anxiety meds which are sedatives. It's considered expert opinion on impairment. Sealegs are generally considered acceptable, as are antihistamines.

Of course there are many other kinds of impairment - e.g. fatigue, depression, argument with partner before work. As an employer my first and last job is to keep people safe. I manage as many sources of impairment as I reasonably can e.g. fatigue policies for vessel crew, EAP programmes for employees undergoing mental distress. I've had to deal with issues arising from a person fasting for religious reasons, when they have a physically demanding job. So yes, cannabis would be one issue amongst many.

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.

Again it isn't moral - unless you consider workplace safety a moral issue, rather than an ethical and legal one. It also isn't panic, more like "this is going to be a PITA"

This is all moot now as the referendum outcome is decided by not yet known. I voted "nah". However, based on the green party voter turnout, I'm guessing "yeah" will be the result.

Mike

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 25