I read a proposed drug and alcohol policy today which raised concerns and questions. Before I go further let me clarify that I'm an unusually light drinker and don't use illicit drugs so I'd consider myself to be in the nothing to hide category.

The policy as I understand it proposes twice yearly breathalyzer tests and the possibility of random of saliva swabs for employee's and visitors who happen to be on the premises at the time. A refusal to take part or sign associated paperwork is treated as a positive test.

Some action eg change of duties (although supposedly no disadvantage to the employee) can be taken for any alcohol reading between 0.00% and 0.05% at the discretion of supervisors and disciplinary action for readings above that. Any traces of illicit drugs can lead to disciplinary action. There are a number of safeguards around the above such that in normal circumstances it should be low risk for employee's (and visitors).

Everything I saw in the policy can be justified in one way or another yet in the whole it left me with the impression of an intrusive extension of the nanny state into the workplace.

Unless the use of alcohol or illicit drugs is occurring during work hours or is impacting on an employee's performance (to a greater degree than other issues) it really is none of the employers business.

It also occurred to me that there are plenty of other issues which routinely impact on peoples ability to perform their jobs such as their domestic situation or their children's behavior (and worekplace restructuring and open plan offices would be way up there).

I'm interested in knowing what others think about employers imposing mandatory testing on employee's where there is not reason to consider that the employee's performance may be adversely impacted by drugs or alcohol.

R0bert

I would be interested to know more about the circumstances, R0bert.

The part that jumped out at me was:

"...random of saliva swabs for employee's and visitors who happen to be on the premises at the time."

The presence of visitors on the list would indicate a high probability of Health 'n' Safety being a key factor. I can't see any outsider accepting disciplinary action from a third party, except where that simply says "you're not welcome here, you're a danger to yourself and us, go away".

More information, please.

Pericles, correct visitors who either return a positive result or refuse to cooperate can be asked to leave.

R0bert

I don't know what work you do, but drug and alcohol testing has become a widespread practise. I despise it as draconian and intrusive, especially since there is little evidence of either need or efficacy in reducing workplace accidents.

It seems to be mostly driven by HR departments lookimg to both justify their existence and to create another "reason" which can be used to bypass unfair dismissal laws, as well as by insurers who are looking to reduce actuarial risk, especially since the cost is borne by others. One large workplace which I know well has estimated that such a program would cost them in excess of $200k PA and has decided that the game isn't worth the candle.

Speaking for myself, I often have a joint after lunch, but since I'm self-employed, I make the rules. In over 10 years of running my own business, there has never been a lost-time accident, so either I'm exceptional or the concept is flawed.

True story not invented.
Yesterday was my RDO
But I Filled in for another.
At 6 pm sat opposite a bad boss, working on an agreement/award.
The only item we agreed on?
D and A testing in the workplace.
He as stunned that both my workmate and I agree,,, testing should take place.
RObert with true honest respect,, nanny state my bottom.
It is in my view unionism that will not let such testing take place that defames the movement.
Every shift start in mining see workers must test them selfs, so they should.
Safe work places, returning home fingers and toes with you is a good unionists wish.
Some unions,, blindly talk of rights but ignore the pain of work place deaths.
If RObert you and I lead a workplace tour with one aim, finding DXA offenders you would be afraid to think how lucky we are deaths are not much worse.
I get tested , union officials do, often.
continued.

Last week I left home twice pre 4am.
Nothing new in that but what was new I turned my ham radio off and CB on should have known better.
I know the road transport industry, maybe thats why I do not often hear that radio.
The drug fueled conversation was much as it was in the 1970, and 80s talk of slabs palettes and such, the way drugs come packed gives them the name.
Walk in any road side rest area eyes to the ground, in time you will start to find pill bottles.
You will see urine filled drink containers, any test would be interesting.
Drug use in the transport industry is killing every week.
High income workers use high cost drugs others lessor one but the workplace is no place to be affected by them, ever.
nanny state? the victim may not always be the one affected by drugs, no some times we must obey the rules.
Want to share a night mare? borrow a CB radio, forget the tough cowboy view of truckers[ some are good blokes all of that and more]
Hear grown men talk about running cars off the road or over cops, men who would cry if their kids took the same pills.

Belly, you're not making sense. If this is so bad, why are rates of accident so low? Why would R0bert "be afraid to think how lucky we are deaths are not much worse." IOW, it's not "luck" it's the reality not bearing out the hysteria

I like my stubby & I am not under any influence after having a couple. I know many who don't drink at all but are under the influence of stupidity & ill logic. Shouldn't they be tested as well ? Having stated that I support Drug testing but I do not support people losing their employment because of it. Demotion is a far more effective but less harmful strategy . It makes people think & reflect rather than get them into a state of despair & resentment.

Belly I don't work in a mine or construction site. I don't operate machinery.

I'm quite in favor of testing where there is sufficient cause to believe that someone may be over relevant legal limits but find the idea of an employer being able to insist that I partake in routine drug and alcohol testing overly intrusive.

I think that we need to resist the incursion of unnecessary bureaucracy into our lives, it becomes a habit and what starts out with one purpose has a habit of morphing into something else. People with jobs that involve control of others tend towards extending that control when they can get away with it.

Test where there is cause to believe that someone is outside relevant legal limits, and limit's which apply on the roads are probably a good indicator for a lot of job's.

R0bert

In one of my work places people did lines of coke in the boardroom. Apparently it helps marketeers with 'brainstorming'. I remember thinking of switching to the marketing department after that.

This actually makes sense in some workplaces. Performance enhancing drugs. Many employers are happy as a Larry to provide all the free coffee they can to make sure people are stimulated and able to work faster and longer.

It would seriously enhance the productivity of a country if stronger stimulants were made legal. A lot of the most creative work from artists and musicians is also done under the influence of drugs too.

It always amazes me why the government isn't making it's own synthetic drugs, designed for maximum productivity and social cohesion with minimum health complications. Soma would be a great idea.

This is becoming more common. Even in the APS some public servants are required to sign as part of their contract that they are willing to submit to a drug test if asked and those in law enforcement have been doing it for a while.

The bit of research I did just quickly reveals mining employees have been subject to drug testing for some time.

http://www.mirmgate.com.au/index.php?coreId=2534

While I don't like unnecessary intrusion by bureaucracy wouldn't it be wise to ensure those carrying guns or using machinery, particularly if it risks the lives of others, are not under the influence of any mind altering substances?

Does anyone know the actual figures for accidents (particularly by those using machinery) being a direct cause of drug use? There have been reported cases of accidents involving truck drivers who were using drugs mainly as a result of unfair work practices forcing drivers to work inordinately long hours.

This was an interesting article:

http://workplace.samhsa.gov/DrugTesting/Files_Drug_Testing/FactSheet/factsheet041906.aspx

It boils down to whether or not accidents are currently being caused by drug use and what are the statistics? If we want to go down the path of evidence-based policy then these facts need to be ascertained.

drugs used in parliament house are killing and terrorising people every day.

Lets drug test these pollies.

Antiseptic <" Speaking for myself, I often have a joint after lunch, but since I'm self-employed, I make the rules."

Well, that explains quite a bit now doesn't it?
Dope is well known for inducing aggression and feelings of invincibility in some people.
I hope you are a one-man business, and that you don't drive after your joint?

I believe that drug and alcohol testing only has a place in some workplaces like sporting clubs or industries that require driving as a part of the job.
However, I wonder what the rate of accidents in the mining sector was like before they introduced this mandatory testing?

Hi RObert, interesting discussion.

I would agree with testing for drugs at workplaces only if there was a very plausible, logical explanation and reasons to justify it.
I'd agree with Pelican that in some cases, it would be common sense to test for drugs (legal and illegal)- such as safety e.g. working with heavy machinery, driving.

There is no evidence that people, who have traces of drugs (e.g. marijuana) in their system perform worse than others, or that it affects the safety of a work place.
In fact, it might well be the case that drugs can increase someone's performance while not harming colleagues.

Unless there are very good common sense reasons, it should be of nobody's business what anyone chooses to put in their body, and I would see it as an intrusion, and drug testing would just be based on ideology and prejudice.

Wouldn't all this cost extra time and effort, creating more paperwork, which would factor out weak and vague reasons for drug testing such as 'better performance'.
Better performance at what... creating more admin work?

Celivia, I agree it is nobody's business what someone choooses to put into their body, provided they do it in the privacy of their own home. As I am responsible for their safety traveling to & from work, & at work, if they work for me, it then becomes very much my business.

I believe any drug testing policy, [unless set by law] should be advised before employment, but I would not, & should not be expected to, employ anyone who objected to a drug testing policy I set.

Hi Hasbeen,
"Celivia, I agree it is nobody's business what someone choooses to put into their body, provided they do it in the privacy of their own home."

Exactly, that's what I'm trying to say, too. With alcohol, it will be out of the system in a relatively short time. With marijuana, while it loses it's effect also in a short period of time, traces of it can still be detected in the body for weeks (I believe even months).
That's why I don't really understand: 'do it at home, not at work' argument.
Of course I agree with allowing people to take drugs at home and not at the workplace, I am talking about the EFFECT.
One can take a litre of whiskey at home before leaving for work... that doesn't make the action right. One should not turn up at the workplace under the influence of alcohol.

On the other hand, one can smoke a joint on say, Friday night, then the effect of the joint wears off the same night. But if that person got tested on Monday morning, traces of cannabis would still detectable, while the effects have worn off days ago.

So I really don't get how they're going to get their heads around this. Would one discipline an employee for having smoked a joint on the weekend even though there were no effects left as that person entered the workplace?

"As I am responsible for their safety traveling to & from work, & at work, if they work for me, it then becomes very much my business."

Agreed. And there is no problem if the effects have worn off from the time they leave for work.

Sorry anti not trying to be smart, actually making an effort to communicate with you.
How would you know the rate of accidents in the road transport industry?
Believe me that number is high.
In fact work cover and the other useless groups in place to keep workplaces safe do not investigate such road deaths.
No secret the transport workers union has asked for years why not, it is a workplace.
The fact is, I will never know why, drugs and grog kill and we do not hear about the involvement , just maybe it is to save surviving relatives pain.
And why get bogged down on those who use, victims can be those who die and never used anything.
I am from a family in the transport industry, understand no matter what is said drugs are more often used than not.
Is it ok to share the roads with drivers totally out of their heads? you do every day.

I'm all for it. There's plenty of jobs I've had where I've been tested for drugs. No drama with it whatsoever. Nothing worse than being in a high risk job and you're working around a forkie, truckie, crane operator, offsider, or in a couple of security jobs where they've been hungover or HANGING for their next cone while carrying a gun. Why you'd get off your face the night before work beats the hell outta me. Plus, they're unreliable as well. You're always picking up the slack of habitual drinkers and users.

Don't see how they can test visitors, however.

Dear RObert,

To me the whole proposal as outlined in your
opening post sounds somewhat draconian.
If employers are going to impose those sorts
of things into their companies, people won't
be applying for jobs with those companies.

It sounds similar to the days of when "religion"
was featured on job applications and when
people refused to answer they didn't get the job.
And heaven help those who were the "wrong" religion
to the employer. The same as asking women, "Do you
intend to have a family soon?"
I would have thought that those "good old days?"
were well and truly over!

Foxy,
I really hate to have to say this but you're way off the beaten track on this one. What are you on tonight ?
Belly, I'm pleasantly surprised at your post, I'm with you on that one.
I think it an insult to call a plant after the mentality of someone who smokes it. the plant is not a dope, the user is !

Foxy my impression is that it's probably proposed with the best of good intentions, that with the current management it's unlikely to be implemented in a draconian manner.

My concern is that for what are primarily office workers there would seem to be little if any genuine safety risk provided people are not intoxicated on the job (eg I'd support tests where an employee was suspected of being intoxicated at work).

Yet another whittling away at peoples privacy because in some circumstances it provide benefits.

I can see potential for abuse with a change of management but I'm more bothered by changes which lead to that kind of intrusion into peoples privacy without clear cause being seen as valid and acceptable.

Celivia I don't seem to have crossed paths with you in ages. You've slowed down your posting habit's in recent times as have I.

R0bert

Dear Individual,

I was merely expressing my opinion.
I don't always get it right - but
what the heck?
And what am I on?
Only tablets to control my irregular
heart beat and high pulse rate - which
I'm pleased to say are working great! (so far).
Touch wood!

Anyway, I'll have a re-think about this entire
matter having read some more posts on this
thread - and get back to you.

Foxy hope you are better.
my family is better placed than a week ago.
Here I must make my stand.
I truly respect both you and RObert, but you are both wrong.
No saint and no lie teller I have in my youth smoked more than a few cones, no longer but no element of reformed so you should in me.
I have, gee so many years ago, driven interstate trucks, full of beans, drugs.
Workplace deaths include high income construction workers drunk on drugs or alcohol traveling for hours to or from work.
After working 12 hour shifts.
The rights of the clean workers in the workplace are threatened by no testing.
Bosses are not being silly, not being hard not standing over a worker.
In the workplace A BOSS ha a duty of care, to? his workers.
Would you RObert or foxy run a factory high risk workplace, and not be able to separate users from non users?
Privacy, protection of workers rights are weak gutless excuses for standing against drug testing.
I do not ever want to tell a family dad is dead his mate killed him while out of his head.
With a Passion I despise political correctness, this is such blind to reality.

Pelican:"Does anyone know the actual figures for accidents (particularly by those using machinery) being a direct cause of drug use?"

Not as far as I can work out. The last thing that those who seek to promote intrusive regimes want is evidence. However, for motor vehicle accidents overall, I understand the correlation with drug use is quite poor. As for drinking there's a big difference between having one cone and binging on speed for a week.

The trouble is that the figures are very rubbery, with little effort made to disentangle the causative effects. As long as the blanket prohibition approach is in place there is little incentive to do so.

Suzeonline:"Dope is well known for inducing aggression and feelings of invincibility in some people."

You really don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Suzeonline:"I wonder what the rate of accidents in the mining sector was like before they introduced this mandatory testing?"

Hardly changed. The mining industry and civil construction have been highly safety-conscious for years, yet still accidents occur. I've worked on several mines and the biggest factor I saw was the pressure to produce, leading to workers rushing themselves. I've seen sites where the "gun" operators were routinely speeding with everyone turning a blind eye, while less talented (but drug-free) workers wrtr regularly tested "randomly" to make up the numbers.

Each time I've been to a mine I've had to either be tested beforehand or produce the certificate from the most recent test. It hasn't stopped me taking some weed with me for after work and it hasn't stopped others from doing the same.

Still, don't let facts get in the way of a good witchhunt, dear...

Belly:"How would you know the rate of accidents in the road transport industry?"

The data is freely available, Belly. Trucks travel overall about 10% of the distance that cars do and they are involved in about 15% of all fatal crashes. Now, before you run around saying "see, I was right", there's a big "but" coming: but, the actual number of accidents they're involved in is much smaller, since a truck is about 4 times as likely as a car to cause a fatality if an accident occurs. IOW, that 15% of fatalities reflects a truck accident rate of about 1/3 that of cars.

IOW, truck drivers are on the whole, very safe, but when something goes wrong, it's bad.

The risk is small, but the hazard is potentially high. Anybody making safety or population health policies has to bear this in mind.

A classic example is the argument about funding of breast cancer programs against prostate cancer programs. Breast cancer and prostate cancer have approximately equal infection rates in their target populations, so the risk is approximately the same. However, breast cancer presents a greater hazard, because it can kill quite quickly and it is usually the primary cause of death when it does. Prostate cncer rarely kills quickly and it is often beaten to the punch by other diseases of age. therefore, public health policy-makers target the one more than the other.

Anybody who has had to do a JSA should understand the diference between risk and hazard. You should too. Do you get just as upset about an unmopped spill in the lunchroom as you do about a leaking drum of petrol sitting outside it?

Personally, I feel much safer knowing the truckie coming toward me is on the whizzer, since at least he's awake. By all means, check logbooks, pull trucks over to check miles and times, put monitoring cameras about to ensure they can't cheat and do back-to-back Sydney/Perth runs or something. IOW attack the problem, not an easy politically-palatable target.

Just to clarify the breast cancer/prostate cancer example. The relative hazards presented by the two cancers have shifted significantly in recent years due to the focus on breast cancer. Prostate cancer now presents a significantly higher hazard than breast cancer. It also presents both a greater risk and greater hazard than truck accidents.

If you were serious about "protecting your members" Belly, you'd be campaigning for funding to go toward researching, detecting and treating prostate cancer.

Hi RObert, yes I've only recently started posting again after having a long break. I felt that I didn't really have the time and motivation to consistently post.

Anyway, I find this drug testing in the work place a highly controversial issue.
In my opinion, tests can only show use and as Antiseptic mentioned, there is a big difference between use and abuse.

Drug tests do not show the impact on performance either; they merely show whether someone has been using a drug. But so what, if they have, in their own time, used a drug? It says nothing about performance or safety at work.
I'm not talking about drugs and driving, drugs and heavy machinery, as RObert is specifically talking about drug tests in office environments.

If this is about performance, then performance tests would be much more valuable, let alone less unethical than drug tests.

And how reliable are drug tests anyway? From what I know, they are not 100% reliable and can give false positives.

It is much easier to find out whether someone has used cannabis than 'harder' drugs like cocaine or speed, or alcohol, because cannabis leaves traces in the body for a long period. Therefore, test results would not give the whole picture, and unfairly targets those that use cannabis.

Do you know what the purpose of this drug testing is in your work place, RObert? Have they told you whether it has to do with work safety, performance....
Have they outlined the reasons clearly?
I would like to see some kind of statement that shows that drug testing would benefit your workplace, and why.

Marijuana use can in some, affect the brain's ability to misjudge speed and distance. Obviously being drunk or over the limit carries the same risk. There was a program about the rise in the use of Xanax (overtaking sales of heroin on the streets) which radically alters the minds ability to make good judgements.

What people do after work in their own homes is one thing, but in the workplace I can see in some cases where it might warrant drug testing, even if it is just a manager noticing someone is off his head and can request he/she undergo a test.

This sort of regime has to have a purpose, not just for the sake of it, I can't see a mining or trucking company spending money on drug testing if it has no benefit at profit end. There may be other pressures from insurance companies and payout issues should drugs be involved. Which from an insurance company POV you can see why they would not want to incur losses due to poor workplace practices.

It is a complex issue - workplace safety is both an employer and employee responsibility.

Pelican:"I can't see a mining or trucking company spending money on drug testing if it has no benefit at profit end"

Pressure from regulating authorities driven by politicians and insurers eager to have another actuarial risk under control, however small; HR departments wanting an excuse to get rid of employees without running into unfair dismissal laws; unions wanting to look after their members. All give plenty of incentive for the introduction of these sorts of regimes.

The issue is not as simple as productivity vs cost.

Granted Antiseptic. But it is still driven by business motivations even if it is insurance companies putting on those additional economic pressures.

It is not only happening within workplaces but for charity events and fairs. One project I was privy to involved a street fair with stalls, games and the like, but was at risk of being cancelled due to the high insurance premium for personal liability. You know the sort of thing, in case a member of the public trips over a tree root and breaks a leg etc.

Never easy trying to talk to you antiseptic.
Just as my slanted views on unions and Labor are in every post, yours here again compares men and womens illnesses?
Fact is bloke we support prostrate and ask members to contribute just one dollar a week to fund it, not us experts get the cash.
We ask constantly that members wives get them to be tested, I may well have a problem here too.
Remember drug and alcohol testing is the subject.
Who thinks the dead and injured are always users?
An understanding of just how hard SOME truckers use drugs is needed.
Some use speed some heroin some cocaine, most handle it and get of it at some time.
Some tablets on sale at every thing from Chemists to back doors at truck stops are very dangerous.
I knew of a chemist on the outskirts of Sydney that sold pills to any truck driver until police closed it down, other side of town a service station sold a truck load.
I am the last person in the world to point the finger but as a trade unionist I know, totally, no one has the Right to be in the workplace while affected by drugs or grog.
I can show you blue collar workers who lost jobs $100.000 jobs in computer handling because they came to work drugged and continued to use at work.
I am confident my stand helps more workers than it hurts and see ALWAYS help and counseling comes first always.
PS
if every worker in Australia contributed one dollar a week to a fight cancer fund we could beat it just $1

Not content to just show his ignorance of the effect of dope on the brain of users, Antiseptic goes on to declare <" Prostate cancer now presents a significantly higher hazard than breast cancer."

Where did you get that info from Antiseptic? We should all be equally concerned about both sorts of cancers.

I work with palliative care patients, and I see far more breast cancer patients than prostate cancer patients.

There are now blood tests that men can take to detect any early prostate problems. There are still no such tests for breast cancer. Breast cancer is found once it is already growing.

We need much more research in both areas, as they are both horrible cancers.
But hey, I suppose you know better of course.

Belly:"Fact is bloke we support prostrate and ask members to contribute just one dollar a week to fund it"

Good work. I wasn't aware of that. It's become a real scourge for older men and there's very little funding that hasn't been hijacked by the "pink ribbon" mob.

Belly:"An understanding of just how hard SOME truckers use drugs is needed."

So your argument is that SOME truckies use to excess so ALL have to submit to testing? That's the essence of nanny-statism and I reject it. If a driver's mates or an employer or the cops or transport department or even *gasp* the Union knows of a partuicular person doing the wrong thing then by all means test him/her, but don't demand that those who might be using responsibly submit to the same thing.

The US military supplies its pilots with amphetamines, especially dexedrine to help them stay awake on long flights and I'm sure other nations do the same. Are you worried that pilots "hopped up" on amphetamines are flying around with nuclear weapons on board?

As always, it's misuse that is the problem. As a good unionist, you should be doing your best to stop employers trampling the rights of your members, not encouraging them.

Perhaps, instead of leaving it in the hands of backyarders you might propose a Gov-operated scheme for didtribution of properly manufactured and dosed dexedrine? It's stronger and "cleaner" than methamphetamine and it would be much, much cheaper for the truckies, as well as keeping the bikies away.

Suzie, tell us agaion how cannabis makes people "aggressive" and "invincible" rather than "placid" and "paranoid"...

On second thoughts, perhaps Mum's advice might be useful: "it's better to remain siilent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".

While you're doing that, you might like to look at the ABS and
the NH&MRC figures. Breast screening has become so over-used that doctors (you know them, they tell you what to do) are calling for programs to be wound back as a waste of money. Naturally, the pink ribbon bandwagon-riders are "outraged"...

I tried Antiseptic give me that,have you ever sat in the cab of a truck, drove all night then after an hour sleep turned around and driven home.
Did you see my claim that drug abuse [ in long distance driving] is more often used than not?
I ask contributors to ROberts thread to think on this.
4 people on the stage to talk to us.
One is the owner or boss of a plant.
He will tell us of his duty of care to his workers, all his workers, he/she may tell of past injury's or deaths.
next is the family of a worker killed or forever crippled by drug use in the work place.
third, let it be a police officer who investigates road trauma.
Last let the drug user alcohol user tell us of his her rights to? be affected while at work by his problems.

Belly:"I tried Antiseptic give me that,have you ever sat in the cab of a truck, drove all night then after an hour sleep turned around and driven home."

Many times. If you're concerned about the hours, take steps to stop such back-to-back runs. Attack the cause, which is largely the profit motive, rather than the cure chosen by some, which is speed.

As I said in my first post:"

Belly:"Did you see my claim that drug abuse [ in long distance driving] is more often used than not?"

And yet the accident rate for such trucks is much lower than for cars driven to the shops.

As I said yesterday:"By all means, check logbooks, pull trucks over to check miles and times, put monitoring cameras about to ensure they can't cheat and do back-to-back Sydney/Perth runs or something". If there is pressure on drivers to do long hours with inadequate turnarounds there will be some who look to stimlants. I'd rather see them using something like dexedrine than overdosing on Red Bull or V or no-doz and getting the caffeine jitters and the rest. I've personally had more adverse effects from excessive caffeine that any other drug. Should Red Bull be banned?

I'm not having a go at you on this Belly, I'm sure you're sincere, but you're loking through a flawed glass. In your zeal to help them you're treating your members like babies who are incapable of making their own informed decisions. Far roo much of Unionism has become devoted to this sort of thinking, where "we know best and the poor sheep should just trust us to do what's best for them". It's elitist and insulting.

Am in agreement with Celivia's, Pelican's, Belly's and Hasbeen's points regarding drug testing.

Clearly there are certain jobs which hold great responsibility such paramedics, pilots, police and so forth whose judgement requires a clear head. For these occupations, tests need to be for drugs whether they are legal; alcohol and prescriptive medication or illegal; amphetamines, pot. However, I believe that R0bert's mandatory testing is invasive and draconian. As Celivia (welcome back) stated the non-brain altering compounds of pot remain in the body long after the effects have worn off.

Suzeonline

I understand that excessive use of marijuana can precipitate schizophrenia in pre-disposed individuals. For the majority of people pot is a relaxant and is used legally in some countries as a recreational drug and for the treatment of chronic pain. Used to enjoy the occasional toke myself. Anti states that he has a toke around lunch time. I suggest an evaluation of his posting times (most of which are in the early AM) is rather telling and other posts are later in the day after the mellowing effects have worn off.

:)

As riveting and vibrant as the discussion has been on this post, I propose to be the Jason Akermanis of this discussion and state the bleeding-ly obvious.

If workplaces adopt random compulsory drug testing regimes most of them would lose large numbers of their most talented staff.

The Police themselves will not allow random testing in their workplace, citing such testing as an infringement on their civil rights.They're absolutely correct.

Just because a person chooses to ingest recreational illegal drugs in their own time, does not automatically mean that the same person cannot act responsibly in their workplace.

We propose with alcohol to define a safe level of use and yet we don't do this with other substances.

For example if an employee loses their job after complying with a random compulsory drug test that exposes a joint they smoked at a party 3 wks ago, the otherwise innocent employee is discriminated against and goes through an unnecessary life changing event, (compared to their workmate who had an acceptable couple of beers at lunch during negotiations with a client).

We all lose, because all we're really doing, is giving few zealots opportunity to enforce their often anal view or prejudices upon the rest of us. The real reasons for the road toll will never be understood while we fail to understand the difference between a stimulant and an inebriant for example, and the effects on driving.

Talent and conformity do not go hand in hand in my own life experience . And people seeking power over others are not among the most talented people I find.

It's just plain frightening to give anyone random powers for any reason without first understanding all the facts and frankly why create a problem where a problem doesn't currently exist.

Should employers search in the private lives of their employees, for reasons to replace them, when they are currently otherwise happy with them? . I think not

Belly, "I ask contributors to ROberts thread to think on this.
4 people on the stage to talk to us."

You missed the other 96 who act responsibly in their use of alcohol and or drugs who may not appreciate the ever tightening noose of bureaucratic control over their lives.

All,
Those who think they know what's best for others will always be able to find an excuse for their efforts to remove the rights of others.

I never drink heavily, never use illegal drugs, nor do I willingly consent to routine alcohol and drug testing in the workplace.

I don't mind the occasional breathalyzer test on the road's, I've never yet know the cop administering the test and as long as I'm within the legal limit's there is no record. There is no significant link between alcohol or drug use and safety in my workplace, at best safety whilst commuting but I'm not aware of any employee having a work cover relevant accident whilst commuting where alcohol or drugs were a factor.

I suspect that management and union's want to tick this off a list of good things to do.

R0bert

RObert in my world the other 96 want and demand a DxA free the workplace.
Constantly they tell me they are sick of putting up with users, do they have rights?
Want the truth? true storys?
antiseptic claims few deaths are related to drug use in the transport industry.
yet log books have been checked cameras tell of fast travel and we still see drivers asleep just before cameras as they let time catch up with their flight [fast driving times]
Drugs are endemic we can not ignore that.
this story about one newly introduced DaA policy was introduced into a workplace I serviced
one that has seen one needless death and 3 never to work again incidents ,one was proved to be drug affected.
A warning is given 6 weeks in advance ALL will be tested.
16 workers fail that test.
Here is the most used method two lots of numbers in separate containers one names one to be tested or not.
First name then yes or not truly random.
Management, all levels should be in the draw.
If we all of us had just heard my 4 speakers who would you give most value to? who's workplace rights are more important?
I will never ignore the 96% or the family's of victims.
I will fight a bad boss to a stand still but never take one on for trying to obey the laws involving workplace safety.

thinker2:"If workplaces adopt random compulsory drug testing regimes most of them would lose large numbers of their most talented staff."

I'm sure you're right. As I said earlier, I've seen first hand the efforts that some businesses will go to to avoid testing specific staff.

Belly:"RObert in my world the other 96 want and demand a DxA free the workplace."

They might say that to you, Belly, but they have to. With mandatory testing in place what employee is going to risk saying he disagrees? Who would be the next one to cop a test do you reckon, if he did?

That's the trouble with laws like this: they are effective gags on free speech, which means that once they're in, they're nearly impossible to do anything about, since nobody is prepared to stick their neck out for fear of getting it chopped off.

Belly:"we support prostrate and ask members to contribute just one dollar a week to fund it"

I didn't know that, good work. But since the Union has so much influence with Labor, why not ask Government to chip in just one dollar a month per taxpayer? $120 million or so would go a long way. How many female members do you have? You support "Pink Ribbon" day and "white ribbon" day, so what about a "yellow ribbon" day?

R0bert:"Those who think they know what's best for others will always be able to find an excuse for their efforts to remove the rights of others. "

And once those rights are removed, they are gone and can't be easily regained. The "thin end of the wedge" also applies: remove some rights here, then use the precedent to remove other rights "for our own good" of course...

For every million dollars we are taxed antiseptic we or the government could spent it on ten different things and still not fund every thing.
We remember are only talking about this subject because of your intention to compare men and women in every thread.
However my life's work, unsupported sadly, has been a workers welfare fund.
It would work like this, every worker puts a fixed amount, same for all, into a fund managed by other workers.
I see no reason it could not be community not just workers who contribute.
10 dollars a week from each a massive amount each year.
A real and instant donation could be made after a workplace death or injury, cancer in the family , all those days stumping around selling raffle tickets could be come a thing of the past.
The fund, by direction of its manager ordinary people could donate annual 20% to such as prostrate or breast cancer

I am attracting opposition in this thread but I will not change my view.
It is strange to say the least that a unionist has to convince any one of clean workers rights.
PC Political correctness, how I am forever against it.
I can not budge from my view it is an attempt by minority's to impose views on majority's.
Yesterday a long way from home I was breath tested by the roadside.
No reason to fear that, I drink but not at work or driving.
I live in an area that smokes enough dope to fill one of antiseptics large trucks, but judge no one.
In fact work in this area and drug use do not mix.
Having as a younger man used enough speed to keep a very large party going all week I am not a prude.
I am sick of workplace deaths injury's and lost jobs lives destroyed and even relation ships.
Testing is not new,, all have it to get a job in our biggest construction firm you must pass a test first.
I am sure most think the workplace should be as safe as we can make it, and that some who oppose this have never seen a 60 tonne machine racing up and down a fill with a driver not fully in control of himself in control.

Belly, this has nothing to do with "PC Political correctness". It's about the intrusion of the nanny state into peoples lives when it's not necessary. You defend this on the basis of the needs of heavy industry seemingly ignoring that I'm refering to an office environment with no known current drug or alcohol problems.

Step away from construction sites, heavy haulage operators etc for a bit and ask yourself if you really want across the board mandatory drug and alcohol testing of the population. If it's valid in my work place then why not for the whole population?

Applying mandatory tests like this without a compelling safety need is nanny state thinking, opposition to it is not PC, it's a defense of basic rights.

R0bert

R0bert, Belly and assorted others...

I agree completely with Thinker2's post - that we confuse legal with illegal drugs, simply on the basis of prohibitive laws.

The effect on people's behaviour on a couple of stiff drinks is completely different to the effect of a few bongs. I know which people I'd rather be hanging with and its not those who are imbibing the legal drugs.

That said, amphetamines + alcohol; really, really bad.

However, I am veering from R0bert's topic which is about mandatory/random testing for drugs in the workplace.

That a person's career could be ruined for the joint smoked 3 weeks ago is utterly absurd. While we continue to discriminate against the majority for the irresponsible behaviour of a few, we will remain in danger of totalitarianism of either end of the political spectrum. Like so much, we cannot legislate against stupidity. The best we can do is apply discretion in accordance with the individual's behaviour - no employer would want to lose otherwise exemplary workers because of a big weekend.

Anyone who has worked in a busy restaurant will appreciate the following article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/dining/19pot.html?src=me&ref=general

The article also highlights the contribution to creativity that often accompanies a light MJ high.

Fully agreed, RObert and Severin.

Yes Belly I think that we probably all would agree with you that drug tests would be commonsense for these high-risk jobs with heavy machinery, driving and working on heights (although I've heard that mj can help you fly so there's neither a need for safety harnesses nor cars).

Anyway, do you propose that the whole staff of say, Coles or Woolworths should undergo drug testing and ALL the shoppers who pop in to buy a litre of milk as well?

Everybody these days gets OH&S training and this should be enough to make work places as safe as possible.

Oh la la! Article tres bien, Severin... I always suspected Remy- that cute, fat Chef rat in Ratatouille!

Where I grew up, we had a 4x award-winning bakery on the corner of our street. Everybody knew that the baker lived on space cakes and poppy-seeds but I've never heard a complaint about safety there!

First you will not be sacked for a bong three weeks ago.
Testing talks about degrees of impairment, no impairment in that case, yes drugs in the system but not enough.
At say a ship yard, earth moving depot, government workplace offices.
Blue collar workers are tested, they demand and I do on their behalf, office staff are tested.
A contributor talks of cocaine use in his workplace, is that ok?
WHY would any boss want to test? can it just be because the law demand he/she has a drug free workplace?
I think you will find it does.
And if you look you will find cases that saw injured workers take bosses to court because D or A in the workplace lead to injury's.

It's about balance I think Belly, and what sort of society, would most of us like to live in . R0berts original post was about civil liberties more than anything else.

A local police officer once decided it was ok, to randomly test peoples car's for roadworthy rego, and whatever, as people were putting petrol in their cars at the local fuel outlet. I think letters of complaint saw him demoted.

Random powers in themselves assume that something wrong or illegal is occuring at a level sufficiently high to warrant testing everyone or anyone for no particular or apparent reason.

The core principal of "random power" is based upon "suspicion without evidence".

Acquiescing too such powers requires an abrogation of the individual's own civil rights and so the real question is "do we really want authority to possess this much power? ", and/or, live in a society that operates on the the core principal of suspicion without evidence, for the greater good?.

Severin, Cevilia, R0bert and others, can I tell you of my life as a musician/ entertainer in the restaurant circuit when there was one!.(at some other time) Chefs I knew were some of the wildest and most wonderful people I've ever met . But I too, now reminisce.

It's not as simplistic as just testing everyone I don't think Belly, nor is it warranted or represent progress.

I think it is more a case of drug testing companies trying to develop a market than anything else and some uneducated or easily led managers being susceptible to selling techniques - honey trap and free tickets to the footy being some of them.

Sorry to put it so cynically but many managers, especially HR managers, really have no idea at all and are merely following the lead set elsewhere. Senior bureaucrats are the same, much of 'new' government 'policy' federally and in States is a direct copy of what has been implemented and since found faulty somewhere else.

Here is an interesting report:

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/drug-testing-workplacesummary-conclusions-independent-inquiry-drug-testing-work

Personally I'm sad to say it but I've come to the view that it would be best to not only legalize marijuana but have the government tax and distribute it.

People who are addicted are rarely persuaded to stop using - they deny they are addicted; minimize the amount they admit to using, everything that's wrong in their life is the fault of someone else. There is ample research demonstrating impaired brain function, short and long term harms.

I have observed exactly what Suzie and Belly described and I am fed up with picking up after the destruction to lives, relationships, alleviating the mood disorders, psychoses and general mayhem. More though, I am fed up with the stupidity of people so gullible as to buy and use this stuff and the callousness of people who exploit the weakness and stupidity of users.

Make it legal then testing for illicit substances will be largely confined to testing people whose performance is poor. Perhaps limits can be imposed for the purposes of driving - like alcohol - with penalties up to manslaughter charges if someone culpable tests positive.

In any case, there is widespread drug testing amongst US companies and it is expensive and rather pointless - there are lots of ways to cheat the process. There's even a cottage industry in selling articles that, hidden in clothing, will help deliver a stored 'clean' urine sample for testing.

Legalize, let the government dispense it at a cost that undercuts local suppliers, farm it as an industry, tax it and some of the taxes can go towards rehabilitation for people who want to put their lives back together, the welfare, child protection and health burden created by drug use, especially in psychiatric and ED facilities, and for drug education in schools.

Cornflower, excellent link. I hadn't even begun to explore the implications of such a policy in terms of the right of an employee to live their life outside work free of the demands of work.

Pynchme, please enlighten us as to the "ample research demonstrating impaired brain function, short and long term harms." I've had a long-term interest in this subject and I can find nothing that has any credibility to support your claims, other than in the trivial case.

Cannabis does NOT cause schizophrenia, although its use is frequently correlated with people suffering such illness.

It does NOT cause depression or bipolar disorder or any of the other mental disorders that you might claim for it. Once again, though, some people with such disorders find that it helps their condition.

It does NOT cause lung cancer, although really heavy use of the same order that cigarette smokers might employ can lead to emphysems. Use of vapourisers instead of joints or pipes reduces this effect.

Short-term memory is certainly affected, although longer-term impacts are negligible. Judgement may also be impacted, although there is little quantitative evidence.

The biggest "problem" for cannabis users is lassitude and lack of initiative. This is the major aspect of cannabis consumption that could be of interest to employers and public regulators. There is some evidence that use of cannabis is negatively correlated with road accidents. IOW, stoners don't crash as much.

BTW, if you accuse me of something and I deny it, it doesn't automatically make you right and me a "denialist". It just means we disagree.

In this case you're also wrong.

Before the demonisation of cannabis and other medicinal and recreational plant products occurred in the 1920's views such as expressed by Pynchme represent the modern day version of Harry. M. Anslinger's hysterical depictions in the 20's.

Anslinger was thrown out of the W.H.O. and resurfaced in the U.S as a health bureaucrat championing cannabis prohibition and produced hysterical propaganda movies depicting rape, death and mayhem caused by cannabis use. He was financed by the patent owners of the pulp paper manufacturing process for whom paper made from hemp fibre was a direct competitor.

The Dioxin produced by the pulp paper process is now one of our major biological pollution problems and I believe a greater threat to the future (even in mental health) than cannabis use.

History is littered with medical charlatans on this subject and today we have people like Jon Faine on the A.B.C. continually airing a clinical psychologist ? who expresses the view of Pynchme. Never once has Jon Faine mentioned to his listeners that this person's theories have been scotched by much larger and more comprehensive studies in Europe provoked by his guest's study.

Jon Faine himself presents to me as "an armchair or red wine expert" and claims to know all things on this subject from his uni days. Do you the recall the intellectual standing in the corner at parties with a glass of red wine in their hand postulating on the indulgences of others, that was Jon.

con't , I too, not unlike Antiseptic have been a long time observer of the effect's of various prohibitions on our Society, I'm not a fan. The opportunity for the very people you so abhor Pynchme, to commit crime and/or be corrupt is increased by such prohibitions.

Drugs do not create these bad people Pynchme and if recreational drugs were not available as an easy way to make a buck, these people would simply move on to their next criminal activity.They are now in Cyber crime as drug dealing has become more difficult of late through technology.

Attitudes to substance use create the problem's and the large profits. You believe it a sad fact Pynchme that people use drug's, I just believe it's a fact. Otherwise it's probably safe to say that all express our views because we care about our society. With or without drugs or religion "good people are still good people" this is a constant in my life experience.

And I still don't think random power for the few is healthy for any society.

It is clear I will make no progress with some here.
My post history shows a dislike for some of the actions of another union.
They are opposed to all drug testing.
yet place a levee in most EBAs they sign, to fund drug and alcohol help for workers in need.
I wear, often the shirts they sell to fund it too, and pay more than the asked price.
Now under the system of OHxS we imported from Thatchers England, bosses must consult and are bound by law to give workers a safe workplace.
I fight constantly against children of unwed parents, who are employers and refuse to buy personal protective gear.
I doubt very much good or bad bosses want to spend more than they must on any safety issue.
I will always believe personal rights are important but not enough to over rule every one Else's

I'm for legalizing, growing, taxing and government distribution.

I'm at the coalface and see the results every day. Since idiocy is determined to propagate the notion that marijuana is harmless; we might as well channel some of the money that illegal growers and distributors make off it towards medical, welfare and rehabilitative care for people who want to get free of it. Making it legitimately available and cheap might reduce crime and policing costs.

Every day of care in an acute care unit costs about 1,000 dollars (probably more). Average length of stay might be two weeks - though some are in for months and then need community care as well. But for argument's sake - let's say each episode costs $14,000 just in acute care costs alone (not including the cost to get them there - community workers, community psych or GP, police, ambulance).

"A review of the research on the effect of cannabis on pilots revealed that those who had used cannabis made far more mistakes, both major and minor, than when they had not smoked cannabis.... The worst effects were in the first four hours, although they persisted for at least 24 hours...It concluded "Most of us, with this evidence, would not want to fly with a pilot who had smoked cannabis within the last day or so"

"In New Zealand, researchers found that those who smoked regularly, and had smoked before driving, were more likely to be injured in a car crash. A recent study in France looked at over 10,000 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes. Even when the influence of alcohol was taken into account, cannabis users were more than twice as likely to be the cause of a fatal crash than to be one of the victims."

Royal College of Psychiatrists:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx

Australian Medical Association:

http://www.ama.com.au/youthhealth/cannabis

Anyone who wants to quibble about the research can take it up with those institutions. I also suggest a visit to your local acute care psychiatric ward and/or to various community services that try to house and care for people who are attempting recovery.

pynchme:"the notion that marijuana is harmless"

No ome has suggested it is harmless. you have a real problem in dealing with shades of grey, don't you? Everything has to be black and white or you simply can't get your head around it. Thus, cannabis must be either "good" or "bad" and it can never be a little "good" or a little bit "bad", byut must be placed in one box or the other in order for you to even think about it. The same sort of need for absolutism comes through in every one of your posts: it's not merely muddled, it's borderline dysfuntional.

Despite your links, the evidence is poor for a correlation between cannabis consumption and driving incidents and non-existent for a causative link. Accidents caused by a driver who has used no other mind-altering substance but marijuana are almost non-existent. Psychiatrists have not been able to show a causative link between cannabis consumption and mental health outcomes. Correlation does not imply causation, despite your own preference for trying to make it so.

I do agree with you that regulation makes sense. At present, most people who want a smoke have to associate, at least indirectly, with organised criminals and they have to pay through the nose to do so. The quality is variable and hence the effects are somewhat unpredictable. It's a bit like buying a bottle of wine and not knowing whether it's going to be port or rose.

Antiseptic: <"Correlation does not imply causation"> I know that you read this somewhere (maybe 20 years ago; the phrase is an old worn one - but you don't seem to realize that) and your constant use of it occurs I suppose because you think it sounds natty. Well it doesn't. It isn't intimidating; I made no claims about research at all.

You however have - and poorly founded comments at that.

As I say, take it up with the Australian Medical Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Apparently, both existing research and the constant spectacle (which I share) of seeing damaged people in inpatient psychiatric units, has led to them adopting a different POV to yours.

All of the justifications for your addiction that you're using were/are used by alcoholics too. There is research on addictions that describes the methods of denial that are employed by people with dependency problems.

One aspect is the insistence on promoting use - like the alcoholic who insists on generously filling everyone else's glass. Then the alcoholic can internally maintain the delusion that they are only a "social drinker". Btw the term "recreational drug user" amuses me. What's the alternative type of drug user? A 'professional drug user'?

In light of the evidence that drivers using mj are impaired; I think that drug testing after accidents should be conducted as a matter of course and people held accountable, just as they are when it's DUI. I think that if we legalize, create an industry for growers, tax it and distribute the product cheaply, that we can then construct legislation that will hold people accountable for the deletrious effects of their choices; while also making more rehabilitation facilities available for people who want a different way of handling the inner sadness or turmoil that they blunt with drug use.

If drugs weren't illegal, what would cops do?

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0522/largest-marijuana-plant-seizure-police-departments-history-turns-mere-yard-work/

TeeHee

There was a joke in that link:

An old Italian lived alone in New Jersey . He wanted to plant his annual tomato garden, but it was very difficult work, as the ground was hard. His only son, Vincent, who used to help him, was in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and described his predicament:

Dear Vincent,
I am feeling pretty sad, because it looks like I won't be able to plant my tomato garden this year. I'm just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. I know if you were here my troubles would be over. I know you would be happy to dig the plot for me, like in the old days.
Love, Papa

A few days later he received a letter from his son.

Dear Pop,
Don't dig up that garden. That's where the bodies are buried..
Love,
Vinnie

At 4 a.m. the next morning, FBI agents and local police arrived and dug up the entire area without finding any bodies. They apologized to the old man and left.
That same day the old man received another letter from his son.

Dear Pop,
Go ahead and plant the tomatoes now. That's the best I could do under the circumstances.
Love you,
Vinnie

In light of research in Europe indicating the opposite results re pot and driving that you purport Pynchme, it's probably pointless to go on about it and besides this discussion has swayed from the question of civil liberties raised in the original post.

If I may give a example of the type of regulations that seem to work in other European countries, free heroin trials have been so far a great success, and have had the effect of liberating people addicted to heroin from the crime cycle associated with obtaining supply from the black market. Results have seen these people participating in normal life activities, such as having a job etc, instead of climbing in your window and stealing your television set to pay organised criminals exorbitant profits.

I believe civilised and sensible solutions( a bit less hysterical than simple prohibition justified by rabid assumptions ), would see most of your patients do better than they currently are Pynchme. Maybe not even decide to start using drugs in the first place.
Above all, I think public safety should be the fundamental objective of Drug Law.

Alcohol still presents the biggest problem anyway , (not because it legal), but because of the nature of the drug.

Inebriation (an effect particular to alcohol), is the definitive killer behind the wheel of a car, the definitive cause of domestic violence, murder, rape, assault , anti- social behaviour etc. . There is also absolute proof of the destruction of brain cells in long term or even short term or acute alcohol use.

Despite this we don't ban it. I'm not advocating we should, but what's the difference between alcohol and other mind altering/ mood changing substances?. Some peoples attitudes to substances of any kind except alcohol self perpetuate the problem. Alcohol mixed with other drugs can very very bad because inebriation is now part of equation.

Inebriation, not stimulation or sedation or other definition/condition is responsible for more mayhem, death and destruction and accidents in the workplace.

Antiseptic, you must be suffering from one of the side effects of using cannabis on a daily basis- delusions- if you think cannabis will not affect someone's performance in the workplace.

Don't believe me, a lowly nurse, though. Check out this Australian Health department website: commhttp://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishing.nsf/Content/campaign-resources/$FILE/Marijuana%20Fact%20sheet.pdf

But hey, you know better right? Feelings of grandeur and paranoia cause these feelings of denial in people who regularly use cannabis, such as yourself.

"In the short term using marijuana (cannabis) can lead to difficulty concentrating,
impaired motor skills,
slow reflexes,
reduced coordination,
bloodshot or glassy eyes and dryness of the mouth.

Longer term, users face the physical problems of increased risk of respiratory illnesses
including chronic bronchitis and lung, mouth, throat and tongue cancers.

Marijuana (cannabis) can also effect reproductive function, including lowered sex drive and impact on sperm count for males.

Problems can include memory loss, learning difficulties, mood swings, paranoia, anxiety, decreased motivation, hallucinations, dependence, psychosis and psychotic symptoms."

Just in case you didn't know, Antiseptic,
psychosis and psychotic symptoms can manifest as aggression.

Ring any alarm bells with you 'hon'

suzeonline:"you must be suffering from one of the side effects of using cannabis on a daily basis- delusions- if you think cannabis will not affect someone's performance in the workplace."

Me, on Sunday:"No ome has suggested it is harmless."

Me, on Saturday:"The biggest "problem" for cannabis users is lassitude and lack of initiative. This is the major aspect of cannabis consumption that could be of interest to employers and public regulators. "

Thanks for letting me clear that up, dear. May I suggest a joint or two and a good lie down? The rest of your post is as garbled as always. If you're as poor at reading Doctor's instructions as you are at reading what's posted here it might explain the high rate of mismedication that is so common in hospital.

Pynchme, "correlation does not imply causation" is a very old concept indeed. It means, quite simply, that just because two things occur together there is no reason to believe that one caused the other. For example, you're not very bright and you're female: while the correlation between these two things is reasonably strong, especially in the social studies department, there's no reason to believe that being female causes stupidity, or that being stupid causes femininity. For example, Morgan is also not very bright but he's not female, or at least, that's what he claims.

In fact, I suspect there's no causal relationship between your gender and your lack of intelligence at all, it's just a coincidence.

By the way, I don't "promote" use of cannabis or any other drug, I simply reject your efforts to demonise me because I choose to smoke the stuff and am not ashamed to say so. Whether you or anyone else choose to smoke it is your own affair, but I suspect it'd do you good.

Your addistion is to being a busybody and your constant promotion of nanny-statist policies is a clear sign of how far that addiction has progressed. Seek help.

Cornflower

Your joke made me laugh out loud, first thing on a Monday morning - excellent work.

Anti

I note the hour of your last post and the level of venom it contains - maybe bring on 'smoko' a little earlier today.

Suzeonline

I agree that excess use of drugs (from alcohol to crack) particularly by teens (whose brains are not yet fully developed) MAY lead to many of the appalling damage you cite. However, the damage done by keeping drugs illicit is worse - the crime rate, drug-lords, just the 'mystique' of imbibing the banned. We can support and monitor alcoholics, the same cannot be said for illegal drug users.

I am hoping that by the time I reach retirement, it is legal for me to grow a nice little patch of pot in the garden and like my dear departed Grandma who loved a splash or two of whisky in her bedtime milk, I can still on the verandah and partake of a 'cookie' or three. I won't return to smoking the stuff.

Most excellent article and joke, Severin and Cornflower.How does the use of drugs and medicines affect driving skills?

Re driving under the influence of drugs (legal an illegal), some research has been going on in the Netherlands- here's the English version:
http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Drugs_and_medicines.pdf

"The effect of drugs and medicines on driving skills varies according to the type of drug; there can be differences in the effects even within a single type of drug. The effect of cannabis, for example, is that the user becomes ‘high’ or ‘stoned’. These users experience feelings of euphoria, relaxation and lethargy. Their reaction time increases, their coordination decreases, and their memory is affected. As a result, complex driving tasks in which the driver’s attention has to be divided over various individual tasks are not performed as well. Experienced drug users, however, are aware of their diminished skills and adjust their driving behaviour so that the adverse effects generated by the substances are less than would be expected. In combination with alcohol, however, the use of cannabis leads to an extra deterioration of driving performance."

So, experience should also be calculated in when we talk about risk.

And yes, legalise drugs and they can be regulated, realistic warnings can be put in place on packaging based on science and not hype.

I enjoy alcohol for socialising but rarely drink because it really doesn't go with our lifestyle and recreational activities.

If the growth and possession of small quantities of marijuana were legalised and in the event that we wanted to try it too there is no likelihood that our present behaviour would change. That is, it would rarely be consumed unless we expected to be 'dry docked' (car, boat, climbing etc included) for a fair margin of safety.

Most people would be like that I would think and I can agree with those who feel that their freedom should not be curtailed for the needs on the wilful or vulnerable few. However neither side of politics is all that concerned about individual freedom and I think that situation will worsen rather than improve in the short term. The result will be that more otherwise law-abiding citizens will be treated as law breakers and confidence in our laws and government will continue to nose dive.

It is amusing to think about how many of those mansions and expensive cars might have to be sold if all of the little people presently contributing to the rivers of gold from marijuana could grow a few pot plants instead.

Be interesting too to see what effect it had on reducing the binge drinking and drunkenness that is the root of most violence.

There are risks in reducing restrictions on marijuana, but a spin-off could be reduction in the incidence of violence and crime. Why concentrate on drug control when the goal should be limiting violence and crime? It is another example where police and government have got the problem back to front and have grasped the bull by the teat, so to speak.

I agree entirely Cornflower, and you make 2 points I'm trying to make but more succinctly than I, when you say :

(1) " Most people would be like that( meaning would act responsibly) , and I can agree with those who feel that their freedom should not be curtailed for the needs on the wilful or vulnerable few".

and (2) " Neither side of politics is all that concerned about individual freedom and I think that situation will worsen rather than improve in the short term".

As a declared civil libertarian I am increasingly concerned that govt continues to encroach on a citizens opportunity to be considered a responsible citizen.

Opportunity to participate positively in society is diminished for most people , original idea's are curtailed, views cannot be expressed as readily as before, as the police state (or it's pet name) the nanny state strengthens it's grip.

Suzeonline,

Cannabis smoking has been connected to emphysema to my knowledge, but is not known to cause cancer.

Impairing of motor skills/reduced coordination is much more relevant if you were talking about alcohol than cannabis

and as for some of the other propositions you make, (is it possible) your opinions could be more a product of mindset than evidence, because no actual conclusive proof exists for the conclusions your drawing.

The Australian Health Dept website would be unlikely to be a definitive source on this subject anyway Suze. I say this with absolute trepidation, and with great respect for both the A. H. Dept and absolute admiration and respect for the nursing profession.

thinker 2,

Where the research seems to have inconsistencies and conflict it is possible it is caused by the difference between research where minimal amounts are often used to identify effect and the clinical records of ill or disturbed people admitted to hospitals. The latter would be using high doses and probably exhibited other problems before using cannabis.

Frankly I wouldn't mind having the option of a little 'grow your own' for relief later on for some of the inevitable problems of ageing. Not to grow old disgustingly although that is an inviting idea but to make the days more tolerable when the pains (and feelings of loss) kick in. Cheap and would go with over-loud Stones LPs - grey power!

Thinker2, I have no problems with your own feelings on the subject, however, it is already well known that people under the influence of alcohol should not be allowed to work at any job.

My opinion is not just based on the Australian Health Department website, although on a subject such as illicit drugs, I can't see why the health dept would put out the wrong info.

All the suggestions of ill-effects of dope smoking etc were mainly only 'possible' side effects. Not all people experience the same medical/mental problems as others after indulging in what is, after all, an illegal drug as it stands in Australia today.

People like our own lovely Antiseptic are breaking the law, and seem proud of it. Says alot about the man really.

I have unfortunately had to deal personally with people who have had severe reactions to smoking/ ingesting dope.

It is a well known fact in the medical profession that marijuana is at the very least, a dangerous precursor to some mental health disorders.

But hey, what do we know? We just work with the awful results.

Suzeonline:"It is a well known fact in the medical profession that marijuana is at the very least, a dangerous precursor to some mental health disorders."

Then you must be able to point to the research that shows this to be a fact? You know, double-blind studies that show an actual causal relationship? Oops, so much for that "fact", eh? What you meant to say was "I don't like pot, so there!".

What is a fact is that some people are so disillusioned with or poorly served by the medical profession's offerings that they choose to self-medicate. Perhaps if the medical profession, especially the psychiatric branch, was more concerned about outcomes for their patients those people who choose to self-medicate would be supported rather than treated like naughty children and guinea pigs for the next untested medicament from Pfizer, which seems to be your own preferred approach. I pity those poor buggers who might find themselves in your ward.

In the meantime, those of us who aren't psychotic also enjoy a smoke.

Severin:"I note the hour of your last post "

Yes, I am an early riser. I use the early hours to prepare for the day's work. Saw blades are re-tipped, chains are sharpened, emails are checked, fluids topped up, etc. Strangely, when I was a lad, early-rising was regarded as a virtue )"early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise") but I can see that for those who make their living from a Government handout such a habit would be looked at askance.

>>> Yes, I am an early riser. I use the early hours to prepare for the day's work. Saw blades are re-tipped, chains are sharpened, emails are checked, fluids topped up, etc. Strangely, when I was a lad, early-rising was regarded as a virtue )"early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise") but I can see that for those who make their living from a Government handout such a habit would be looked at askance. <<<

Anti

Diddums.

If not for you this world would cease to function and go spinning off into the cosmos. Not wonder you need a spliff by lunchtime.

Tell me, do you rest on the 7th day?

Not a thought for medicos, police, farmers, truckies and many more who keep our nation functioning. It is ALL about you isn't it Anti?

I'll tell my elderly mother to return her War Widow's pension, despite her working and paying her share of taxes, you regard people like her as "those who make their living from a Government handout".

You are not the only person who works hard. While I agree with your stance on illegal drugs, I will never condone the disdain with which you treat others on this forum.

I can disagree with others, as I have with Pelican and Suzeonline, unlike you, I know they will not take my differing POV as a personal affront and fill their posts with the poison that you regularly spray over others.

Awaiting your next supercilious swipe. You have no idea how much your unnecessary insults discredit whatever reasonable points you have to make. As an advocate for the legalisation of cannabis, you make a good wowser.

Thanks Severin and Suze.

Btw the excerpts and links with research sources that I provided are from the Australian Medical Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, but few addicts (of any substance) can view the evidence and weight of professional opinion objectively. Rationalizations and self-justifying defences must prevail. There's no sneaky motive; nothing to be gained by identifying the deletrious effects of mj use. Health and welfare providers get all the biz they need regardless of how psychoses and mood disorders, motor vehicle accidents, family breakdown and whatnot occur.

It's then not just a matter of the addicts' individual rights and freedoms, but of the rights and freedoms of people who have to deal with the effects (families especially) and of the cost to society generally. One of those costs is to young people who might try it and probably like it, then read the utter rubbish espoused by devotees that encourage it, and who are then more susceptible to the effects of the various chemicals on the developing brain.

I am advocating that in some way the money going to maintaining the drug biz instead be channeled into welfare and health costs and especially, the costs of rehabilitation for those who are willing to use it.

As I said, personally I am really fed up with seeing the claims of harmlessness, while trying to deal with the endless stream of people struggling to cope with the effects, and their families and carers who really just don't know how to live with someone whose moods turn into rages; who can't heat soup without making a mess; who is generally oblivious to personal responsibility for self care. If mopping up the mess left by addicts' personal choices and rights makes me a busy body, let it be understood that I am a VERY BUSY body - it would be nice not to be :)

Antiseptic <" Then you must be able to point to the research that shows this to be a fact? You know, double-blind studies that show an actual causal relationship? Oops, so much for that "fact", eh? What you meant to say was "I don't like pot, so there!"."

Actually, I do have proof...how about the British Medical Journal studies? Check out the website for yourself:

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~hevern/storiedconduct/files/Cannabis%20and%20psychosis.html

"A new meta-analysis published in British medical journal, The Lancet, argues that the use of cannabis is not at all an innocent pleasure. Rather, in a review of the combined results of 35 population-based longitudinal observational studies of the relationship between the use of cannabis and psychiatric disorders in later life, the authors found an overall increased risk of 41% in the development of any psychosis among individuals who had used marijuana in the past."

Apparently it was during the free-sex-and-drugs days of the 1960's and 1970's in America that many non-medical people 'decided' that marijuana was mainly harmless.
The medical profession never agreed with the hippies on that one.

Hmmmm......who to believe- The Lancet (British Medical Journal), or dope-smoking brain addled Antiseptic?

Suzeonline:"A new meta-analysis"

Here's a tip, hom, a ",eta-analysis" is what you do when you don't have actual controlled trials. It's a rehash of old stuff, not a rigorous experiment. You really should do something about that education of yours.

What the Lancet says is: "Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in this issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use COULD increase the risk of psychotic illness".

Of course, a nurse like you doesn't need to be told that there is a vast difference between "could" and "does"...

For example a nurse "could" get Doctor's instructions right all the time but the nurse "does" frequently balls it up. See?

It's a question of reality vs fantasy.

Thanks for sharing the article with us though. If that's the best you've got, I think I should have an extra couple of cones this arvo.

Severin:"Not a thought for medicos, police, farmers, truckies and many more who keep our nation functioning. It is ALL about you isn't it Anti?"

Well, given your original comment to which i was resaponding was "all about me" it seemed reasonable to keep on topic. Sorry if that confused you.

I'm nor entirely sure what any on those goups you mention have to do with my early rising, except that they too have work to do and can't lie in bed waiting for their next benefit cheque to hit the bank.

Severin:"As an advocate for the legalisation of cannabis, you make a good wowser."

But I'm not an advocate for legalisation or anything else. I'm simply a bloke who likes a puff and doesn't like the sanctimony expressed by the lip-pursers.

As it happens, I quite like you and your POV on many things, but your determination to be "solid" with the twits drags your standard down. Do try to avoid falling for the leg-humping antics of the "me-too" brigade; you're one of those who can actually think.

Pynchme and Suzeonline

I understand your anguish when having to clean up the mess some people make of their lives. Just a reminder that these people are a very small minority of drug and alcohol users. While it is a truism that one bad apple spoils the lot, it is a better solution that illicit drugs be decriminalised and come under the scrutiny of organisations that can help and not have people coming into contact with a criminal element they would not normally meet. And, back to topic, the ruination of a career simply because of a week-end rave if workplace drug testing were to become mandatory.

Having worked in the welfare sector, I am aware from direct experience that whether it is the legal (alcohol) or illegal, it is only a minority of people who have health issues from dependency and it is this minority that needs help not a criminal record.
Prohibition continues not to work.

Anti

You are your own worst enemy and pull down what few bona fides you have remaining. Not a poster boy for the occasional joint. However, I can't imagine how vitriolic you'd be if you didn't have a daily toke. You remain an excellent case study - quite fascinating, thank you.

Like all drugs it needs to come with a warning and there is nothing to stop individuals seeking medical advice first.

I wonder if the bad press comes from the problems of excessive use, or excessive use by people with emerging mental health problems who are self-medicating to reduce the effects being encountered from their illness.

I would like to dry up some of the millions going to organised crime and lessen the contact that is occuring between ordinary occasional MJ users and criminals. Reducing police corruption is another consideration. So legalise possession of a small quantity of the drug and the cultivation of some plants.

I don't see how those who are bent on abusing any drug will ever be stopped by bans and stiff penalties. They just buy it from a sleezy criminal at a premium. After all, where do all of those celebrities get their coke from?

Likewise there is nothing except better counselling and support facilities including refuges, especially during the young student years, that can help those who suffer, or are likely to suffer, from anxiety, depression and mental illness.

Risk management not risk aversion is the way.

Antiseptic <" For example a nurse "could" get Doctor's instructions right all the time but the nurse "does" frequently balls it up."

Gee Antiseptic, has a nasty nurse turned you down in the past/present or something? You seem to want to have a fight with me about nurses or the medical profession?

Sorry, I am just not interested in arguing with a dope-affected brain like yours. You never listen anyway.

I agree with Severin when she suggests that you are a poster boy for brain-affected dope smokers.

You go on believing you aren't being affected by the dope, because you are sure to have plenty of visits with the medical professionals that you so hate, sometime in the future.

No, I don't believe decriminalization of marijuana is the answer either. It hasn't worked well with alcohol or tobacco has it?

Suzeonline

>> No, I don't believe decriminalization of marijuana is the answer either. It hasn't worked well with alcohol or tobacco has it? <<

Weeeell.

1. Neither tobacco or alcohol need be bought through criminals.
2. Smoking is very much on the decline thanks to education.

Would you prefer that tobacco and alcohol be illegal as well?

That said, I thought it hilarious when Anti said that I wanted to remain >> "solid" with the twits drags your standard down <<. Ha ha ha, I guess the idea of civilised discussion between people with opposite views is completely novel. I doubt his anger management issues are the result of his lunchtime joint, however, but I don't have any evidence for this.

Suze, I agree completely with Cornflower's last post and would like to see the illegal drugs out of the control of the drug barons. I suspect that these criminals are in positions in society that are very elevated and have a great deal of influence on police, government and other agencies. Instead the drug runners and junkies are the ones who are convicted and nothing changes.

I respect your experience in the medical profession and just want to remind you that you see the very extreme end of drug abuse. I am glad I no longer work in Human Services, one can only deal with ex-cons, abused children, victims of torture and other unfortunate people, without managerial support, for so long before it gets too much.

Last year, when I fell and split my head open, the nursing staff were absolutely fantastic and this was on a Saturday evening when things are very chaotic. When I was finally stitched and checked out the nurse who had been with me for most of the night, gave me a big hug as I was leaving to take a taxi home. This was all in a public hospital - I can't afford private and I totally respect the work you do. But still disagree with you regarding the criminalising of drugs.

Cheers.

Suzeonline "It hasn't worked well with alcohol or tobacco has it?"

The question is compared to what?

Addicts who want to quit can get help without fear of repercusions. I'm unlikely to have my home burgled by someone trying to fund an illegal and expensive alcohol or tobaco habit. Even with increased government tax's those using the products are not automatically on the wrong side of the law so it's a bigger step to turn to crime to fund the habit than it is if if what you are doing is already illegal.

Some people are making a lot of money from the sale of the products but I suspect that it's generally in their best interests to operate within the law which reduces the flow on impacts at that level to some extent. I know that there are exceptions but generally I doubt that hotel licencee's or brewing company bosses are organising hit's on competitors or that tobacco growers kill someone who stumbles on their crop.

There are negative personal and social consequences to abuse of alcohol and cigarette's but my impression is that they are far less than we could expect if the substances were outlawed.

R0ber

Yes I see where you are coming from Severin and Robert, but I still remain opposed to decriminalization of drugs like marijuana.
What I do like about the two of you is that we can have a difference of opinion without resorting to put-downs or name calling- thankyou :)

Severin you are right in saying I have seen the worst of drug abuse- and have been severely abused by drug users in my line of work- so maybe I have a harsher experience with drug users (as indeed I have with alcohol abuse as well).

However, with many of the marijuana users I have met, the general high and sense of well-being they get constantly needs to be 'topped up' by using more and more of it to get the same 'high'.
Often, this search for euphoria leads to harder, more damaging drugs than dope.

If we legalise marijuana, how soon will it be before we legalise heroin, cocaine or ice?
I believe the threat of jail or big fines has deterred at least some potential young users.
It it deters even one person, it will have been worth it.

I have seen too many deaths and shattered families to ever condone the use of hard drugs.

Suzie, there's no evidence whatever that marijuana is a "gateway" drug as you seem to be claiming. In fact, despite your best efforts you've not managed to find anything to support your rather hysterical pronouncements about cannabis. Most people would think "hmmm, perhaps I need to reconsider my views", but you're made of sterner stuff, eh? None of that namby-pamby evidence-based stuff will change your mind when you "know" you're right...

BTW, I'm not "trying to pick a fight" about nursing, simply making an effort to provide an example that you might understand, since it's clear that your grasp of scientific principles is pretty weak. It seems to be working, since you've not brought up any more silly "studies" that don't actually go anywhere.

Anti:

>> your rather hysterical pronouncements <<

>> since it's clear that your grasp of scientific principles is pretty weak <<

>> more silly "studies" that don't actually go anywhere <<

Please learn the difference between adversarial debate and ad hominem attacks. You will never earn the credibility you crave with the way you continue to present your arguments or comments as personal insults. Suzeonline has a valid contribution to make. She is in the unfortunate position of seeing the very worst that drug abuse (legal and illegal) causes to users, their families and society in general.

Suzeonline

The argument R0bert and others have been making is that legalisation would result in less crime and more management of a problem that as long as there are human beings will not go away. We need to minimise the effect obtaining drugs from criminals, that may have been adulterated with noxious substances, is only continuing a cycle that has no end in sight until ALL 'recreational' drugs are under control of legal organisation like the medical system instead of the criminal one.

Suze, what do you think can happen when a teen goes to score a gram of pot, is told none is available and is given a free line of smack? This is often how the 'gateway' works. Heroin is far more addictive than pot, the drug dealer prefers a captive customer to one who can walk away without purchasing anything. Amphetamines are cut with anything from chalk to aspirin and at worse cleaning powders.

Cont'd

Most pot smokers give up the drug when older, such as myself, or have a controlled habit like Anti claims. Would society be a better place if I and the many others who have used in the past had police records as a result of smoking a few joints or even snorting a line or two? I would not have been able to work where I did, and I KNOW I was able to relate to and help a wide range of people before I resigned; due to my experience. I know how hard it is dealing with people who are drunk or drugged, I also know that in the 'soft' (quoting Anti) departments like Human Services, managerial support is rare. If medical staff were given the support to treat addicts simply as suffering from an illness rather than viewed as criminal, surely there would be less recidivism?

Severin:"Please learn the difference between adversarial debate and ad hominem attacks. "

erm... I suggest you might profitably do so before I do, old girl. Suzie's claims are hysterical because they're not based on logic but on an "appeal to emotion", (if you could see the terrible things I see, you'd feel the same way), rather than presenting evidence.

The second example is simply stating a fact: she complianed that i was "trying to attack nurses" and I pointed out my reason for the examples I used. Pointing out that someone has a poor grasp of something is not ad hominem per se. For example, I could point out that you have a poor grasp of the problems facing self-employed people, while I have a poor grasp of the problems faced by those who choose to live on Government handouts. See?

The thirf example you gave is in reference to the studies, not Suzie and I have already given my reasons for believeing them to be silly.

Now, perhaps you might try to argue logically in future instead of resorting to trying to "poison the well" or appealling to emotion or one of the many other failings of logic that infest your output?

You obviously know how to, unlike some of your skirt-hiders.

Anti

No matter how you like to dress it up, a personal insult remains an adhominem tactic and does nothing to win debates.

Show where you believe Suze is wrong. I have. However, unlike you, I also understand from where Suze's quite valid POV is founded - she sees the worst results of drug abuse.

All you achieve is alienating yourself by arguing yourself into a corner. There are no open lines of communication left to you except to denigrate those with whom you disagree.

For myself, I know that in future I will read Suzeonline's posts with an open mind, because she has treated people with respect and presented her POV clearly and with understandable reasons.

You can't use intimidation on an anonymous forum, the way you can to people in your life. Just have a think about how, here, you cannot win people over to your POV with aggression and insult.

Severin:"Show where you believe Suze is wrong."

Already done so, thanks.

suzeonline:"POV is founded - she sees the worst results of drug abuse."

Appeal to emotion, also wrongly implying causation from correlation. Her POV may be valid, but the fact that some users abuse does not imply that all users do or that the drug in question is always bad. No insult here.

Severin:"All you achieve is alienating yourself"

Appeal to popularity and peer pressure. The fact that others may not agree with me does not make me wrong nor does their collective regard or otherwise make me wrong.

Severin:"There are no open lines of communication left to you except to denigrate those with whom you disagree."

Poisoning the well, bandwagon and ad hominem.

Severin:", I know that in future I will read Suzeonline's posts with an open mind, because she has treated people with respect and presented her POV clearly and with understandable reasons."

Wow, there's a job lot of fallacies in here: appeal to flattery, division, bandwagon, genetic, I'm not sure where to stop.

Severin:"You can't use intimidation on an anonymous forum, the way you can to people in your life"

Oooh, nasty, nasty ad hominem, as well as a sideswiping poisoning of the well on the way through. You're quite good at this fallacious reasoning stuff.

Severin:"you cannot win people over to your POV with aggression and insult."

False dilemma, bandwagon, poisoning the well.

Now, where were we? Oh yes, Suzie's wrong, now I remember...

Regarding the decriminalising of cannabis (and other 'soft' drugs), I totally agree with Cornflower, antiseptic, Severin and RObert.

I am also trying to understand why Suzeonline is against decriminalising these drugs.
As a past drug user I only saw the fun side of using. All of my friends were regular users of at least marijuana, but we used drugs on weekends only, for recreation. Nobody I know has had an addiction problem, all moved on and are now, like me, non users.
Suzeonline, you see the worst cases and it probably seems to you that the majority of marijuana users end up this way, but in my opinion it is only a tiny proportion of users who will have severe problems because of it.

Anti, up to a certain point we all take into account our emotions and past experiences when forming an opinion, and have their place.

I agree with Severin that keeping marijuana illegal will mean an increased risk that a person will move on to a hard drug.
Where soft drugs are legal, they are sold, just like tobacco and alcohol, from a retail outlet. There is no need to go to an illegal drug dealer to obtain these drugs. Therefore, one doesn't come in contact with a drug dealer who also sells the hard stuff, like ice.
There can also be warnings on packages, like with cigarettes, and if the drugs come in different strengths, like alcohol, this can be put on the label as well.
Special drugstores can also be an excellent point for drug education. Leaflets with drug warnings, effects and dosage, can be picked up from these outlets too.

As Severin mentioned, we have seen a decline in tobacco usage because of campaigns and education, and the same can be done for any other drugs.

We will all have to agree to disagree with this one.

The only other thing I will add to this debate before moving to another thread, is that there aren't many places in the world that have legalised marijuana to my knowledge.

Why would this be the case if this drug is not a problem?
Australia and other countries are quite happy to continue to legalise alcohol and tobacco (unfortunately tobacco!), even knowing they were damaging to people's health, but not marijuana.
Why is that do you think?

I believe that this is the case because drinking alcohol in moderation is not known to be too much of a problem. I think that tobacco should be banned because there is no safe level of nicotine inhalation (that's another thread though!), and passive smoking is known to affect others.

Yes, alcohol does lead to many hospital admissions too, but at present the drug 'ice' is causing the most problems in our Accident and Emergency rooms.
There was not one of these hard drug users that I met in the hospital system that had not also used marijuana (and I can guarantee that I have met more drug users than most on this forum).

We will just have to agree to differ on this one! :)

Celivia:"up to a certain point we all take into account our emotions and past experiences when forming an opinion, and have their place."

Of course we do. What I was objecting to was Suzie's assumption that her experience is more valid than mine. It isn't, especially when she is unable to back up with facts, the view she has formed based on an emotional response to her experiences.

Emotions are useful drivers of interest in a topic, but as many people here demonstrate all too frequently, they are not productive drivers of debate. It is quite fun to watch people ignore perfectly valid and useful points in favour of a response to a perceived efmotional trigger, then try to pretend that their response is "valid" and somehow makes the reasoned response "invalid".

Suzeonline:"there aren't many places in the world that have legalised marijuana to my knowledge."

That is largely because of the US' "War on Drugs", which was mostly the product of one man, Harry Ainslinger, in his role as Commissioner of the Treasury Department's Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN). The motivation for banning the drug was largely racial, since it was prominent among poor blacks. Ainslinger was in his job for over 20 years and created a culture that persists. Only those countries which are not significantly influenced by US policy (which does NOT include Australia) would be able to pass such a law. Parts of the Netherlands and Switzerland have done so and it is lightly policed in many others.

Besides, a lack of legislation is not a demonstration that the legislation should not exist. The legislation that banned the stuff is only quite recent, while cannabis has been in use for thousands of years. Using your "logic" that legislation should never have been passed, since it was not already in existence!

The traps that "appeals to emotion" lead us into are often deep and highly convoluted, aren't they?

Suzie:"at present the drug 'ice' is causing the most problems in our Accident and Emergency rooms. "

Well, I'd like to know where it's coming from. As a result of your comment I tried hard to get hold of some ice yesterday. None to be found anywhere for any money and I looked quite hard, as did some others on my behalf. Lots of poor-quality speed and some really dodgy pretend-eccies, but no ice at all. How many ice users presented to your hospital in the last month, say?

Frankly, Suzie, I think you're just gabbing with no idea of what you're talking about. Regurgitating the current scare campaign really isn't good enough.

Suzeonline

I believe your real-life experiences have a great deal to do with your attitude towards illegal drugs. I'd be interested to know, what other solutions other than decriminalisation you would suggest. You did admit that alcohol is less of a problem than Ice - do you think this is the result of public education and greater understanding of the effects?

Anti

You tried to score some Ice and came up empty handed. This proves nothing. I place more weight on what a nurse in an emergency ward has to say, than I do someone who still persists in using derogatory statements about those with whom he disagrees:

>> Frankly, Suzie, I think you're just gabbing with no idea of what you're talking about. <<

Suze has far greater knowledge about drugs than you. Where we disagree is on whether these drugs should remain illegal. What are the alternatives to drug users winding up either dead, brain damaged or with criminal records, or a combination of above mentioned?

Chill out. Is it too early for your daily spliff?

Severin:"Suze has far greater knowledge about drugs than you. "

I frankly doubt that. Her statements here are reflective of the hysterical press releases produced by prohibitionist authorities and have little relevance to real life.

I can state with a fair degree of certainty that there is basically NO ice to be had in Brisbane or the Gold Coast at present - not even a gram. Furthermore, there has not been any available for at least several months. Therefore her claim that it is the biggest problem for A&E departments is prima facie wrong. It may have been so six months ago and it may be so next month, but it has not been so for some time and is not so now.

The rest of your post is riddled with fallacies.

Let's look at: "someone who still persists in using derogatory statements about those with whom he disagrees:" followed by :"Suze has far greater knowledge about drugs than you" and the wonderfully well-poisoning effort :"Chill out. Is it too early for your daily spliff?"

Dear me, Severin, are you actually able to discuss anything at all without resorting to insult and irrelevancy?

Antiseptic, I personally know 2 Registered nurses and five Doctors that work in the A&E in our town, and a further 5 Registered Nurses who work in various A&E departments in our nearby city.

They all say that crystal meth (ICE) is a huge problem at present, especially with causing aggression in patients.

I guess they could be imagining it though? How many medical staff do you know personally? Or do you get all your info off the net?

Now, I think I will leave this thread before I get in trouble for abuse or bullying.

Suzeonline:"I personally know 2 Registered nurses and five Doctors that work in the A&E in our town"

Good for you, that must be convenient when you nick your legs shaving.

Auzeonline:"They all say that crystal meth (ICE) is a huge problem at present, especially with causing aggression in patients. "

Aah, do they? They must be right then, and all those drug dealers who would be quite happy to sell me some if they had any must be just playing silly buggers eh?

FYI Suzie, there is a lot of poor quality methamphetamine about at the moment, lots of cocaine apparently, but there ain't no ice.

Want to know why?