Jump to content

New Zealand cannabis referendum, Yes or No


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I do...

If someone has a problem with drugs ( or alcohol or gambling......) they belong in the health system  ot jail.

No vote here . Never touched the stuff. Don't care if you do . Rum in vast quantities though . I wouldn't vote to legalise rum either if it wasn't already legal. You don't unleash things on the public

17 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

pretty sure your staff are capable of looking after their own welfare on this one.  I mean, you chose them, so they can't be dummies eh!

Sadly as much as I and they think they are NZ law say otherwise.

Due to that and how poorly the bill is written my vote has to be based on H&S in my work places, the rights or wrongs of legalising a joint unfortunately can have no input nor can my personal choice.

Again and like so much, the law of unintended consequences is very much in play. It's what happens when a Govt opts for punitive over pragmatic.

15 hours ago, Zozza said:

Alcohol is not illegal but for some jobs you can't come to work with booze in your system.

Same for marijuana.  If your job dictates in its contract that you have to be straight, then straight you shall be -- marijuana not being illegal has nothing to do with it.

The problem with that is who decides whether Rangi is too toasted to drive the forklift, play with explosives, mix batches of chemicals, drive 42,000kg trucks, take our kids on Outward Bound like activities.... to hardly even scratch the surface. If there was a limit or amount or even a framework in which 'impaired' was defined then OK I have a point from which to base that call off. But the bill nor any others define what that limit/point is. So the decision on how fucked up any of my staff are is mine to make employers to make.

What's going to happen if the bill passes as is and Employer A tells Employee X 'You're fried, f*ck off home and sober up, your not getting paid by the way'. Employee X will wonder off to the ambulance chasing employment lawyer and it hits the fan and at huge costs. Employee X will have the backing of the law, the unions and the government, the Employer is fucked.

If the law passes as is, do you trust your employer to make a sound decision if you or one of your work mates arrive to work off their chops? By voting you will be saying either Yes or No to that question.

And we come back to the law of unintended consequences. All those leftie happy clappies who continually wank on about the big bad employers are now handing those employers a very big call to make, a call the vast majority of the employees constantly say employers shouldn't be making and demand law to stop them making.

This bill very clearly shows how little most voters think thing through.....and how poorly Govts can write bills.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, It Got said:

If the law passes as is

That's a very big 'if' though is it not?

It hasn't even made it to parliament to be debated let a lone put into law.  And a very real chance it might not get there at all.  It'd be a shame to take the chance of that happening away imo.

Be interesting to know what the Canada et all have done regarding those bits you're concerned about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, It Got said:

Sadly as much as I and they think they are NZ law say otherwise.

Due to that and how poorly the bill is written my vote has to be based on H&S in my work places, the rights or wrongs of legalising a joint unfortunately can have no input nor can my personal choice.

Again and like so much, the law of unintended consequences is very much in play. It's what happens when a Govt opts for punitive over pragmatic.

The problem with that is who decides whether Rangi is too toasted to drive the forklift, play with explosives, mix batches of chemicals, drive 42,000kg trucks, take our kids on Outward Bound like activities.... to hardly even scratch the surface. If there was a limit or amount or even a framework in which 'impaired' was defined then OK I have a point from which to base that call off. But the bill nor any others define what that limit/point is. So the decision on how fucked up any of my staff are is mine to make employers to make.

What's going to happen if the bill passes as is and Employer A tells Employee X 'You're fried, f*ck off home and sober up, your not getting paid by the way'. Employee X will wonder off to the ambulance chasing employment lawyer and it hits the fan and at huge costs. Employee X will have the backing of the law, the unions and the government, the Employer is fucked.

If the law passes as is, do you trust your employer to make a sound decision if you or one of your work mates arrive to work off their chops? By voting you will be saying either Yes or No to that question.

And we come back to the law of unintended consequences. All those leftie happy clappies who continually wank on about the big bad employers are now handing those employers a very big call to make, a call the vast majority of the employees constantly say employers shouldn't be making and demand law to stop them making.

This bill very clearly shows how little most voters think thing through.....and how poorly Govts can write bills.

gimme a call.  Sounds like you need a good D&A policy and process anyway.

Just as a heads up - a number of large businesses have a Zero Reading requirement.  Rangi (or Rochelle should she turn up intoxicated) agrees in thier employment agreement to the provisions of the policy and process, and are subject to reasonable cause and post-incident (not necessarily accident) testing.  The ones I have seen have termination as the only outcome if the test is positive at ANY reading level.  This is for any of a wide range of named intoxicants.

I am not positioning as agreeing or disagreeing with this approach, just saying it is out there and in large, well resourced businesses whose legal teams have had significant input.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, you already have this problem.  Except for people operating a motor vehicle, there is no statutory level of intoxication at work.  Heaven forbid, after all, that government tells an owner how to run their business.

Hence you already have a risk that you need to make a call of a Friday morning that one or other of your employees is a health and safety risk since they have not sobered up sufficiently to work safely.

Long/Short, this bill changes nothing on risk for businesses

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to say it but I agree with aard on this one.

I've been getting random drug and alcohol tested for over 10 years at various jobs, some places you had to pass a test every day to get in the gate.

IT, making cannabis legal or whatever will change none of that. All the spooky things you are worried about are already happening, your argument for voting no does not make sense, people are already using the drugs.

If its not safe for an employee or contractor to use drugs and work the next day they should already be under a testing regime and meeting company standards. Nothing changes. If an employer in that situation is not already testing and setting standards they are probably already negligent in their duties, again nothing changes if the drug becomes legal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, It Got said:

True Muzled but it is what it is so that's what the decision must be based on.

 

Truth be known I imagine you're in the minority that read the bill IT.

I certainly didn't and call me naive as they come but I'm hopeful most if not all of the stuff that worries you will get thrashed out should it pass.  

I talked to my parents about it a week or so back as knew they'd vote no.  Asked them what they'd think if their oldest grandson came home with a conviction for weed in a few years, and if that happened if they'd still think voting No was a good idea - hmmm, hadn't thought of that they said.

Then sent them the drug harm diagram thing, they were quite amazed.

Then asked them if the sky had fallen in over in Portugal in the last 20 years since they decriminalised drugs, they had no idea about that.

Then dad said about how one of his (retired) cousins in England voted 'Stay' for Brexit because that's what her kids wanted.

I'm optomistic that dad will now vote yes, but mum is marginal at best which even though I explained to her it affects her in no way she still didn't seem to get it.

Anyway, many will disagree but I hope you vote yes. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

BTW, you already have this problem.  Except for people operating a motor vehicle, there is no statutory level of intoxication at work.  Heaven forbid, after all, that government tells an owner how to run their business.

The courts use the same as driving so there is a legally defined level of impairment around alcohol.

18 hours ago, muzled said:

Truth be known I imagine you're in the minority that read the bill IT.

Yeap I suspect so but as it is such a big thing and it is all about the bill maybe if people haven't read it they should not be making what are effectively uninformed votes.

But then this election is about and only about Jacinda and her covid respnce so it;s little wonder bugger all seem to be putting much, if any, effort into making informed calls.

16 hours ago, Rangi1 said:

I do...

The best post by miles  😄

 

even if it did take me a minute or 2 to work it out , opps :0

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...