Page 2 of 8 First 12345 ... Last
Results 26 to 50 of 191

  1. Post
    #26
    I'm not really fussed either way tbh.

  2. Post
    #27
    Will be interesting to see what happens. Most of us are probably for it or don't care, but I know many who will be hard core against it.

  3. Post
    #28
    It might actually bring more people out to vote I know some who have never voted but feel passionately about the legalization of cannabis.

  4. Post
    #29
    Interesting times ahead. I look forward to the hysteria and will try and not get too annoyed by the inevitable conservative Christian lobby.

  5. Post
    #30
    Bridges would be voting against cannabis legalisation and said he hadn't smoked marijuana at any point in his life.
    There's something really off with this guy.

  6. Post
    #31
    CODChimera wrote:
    There's something really off with this guy.
    He gets mad

  7. Post
    #32
    I think he's in the closet

  8. Post
    #33
    InvisibleShadow wrote:
    Will be interesting to see how many employers continue with their zero tolerance policy in the workplace even if this does get legalised. I personally doubt that my company will change, we'll just get drug dogs coming into the office on a more regular basis.
    With company directors being responsible for Health and Safety issues I doubt anything significant will change. Those who care have probably already opted for saliva based testing.

  9. Post
    #34
    If it passes, how does it work for people already in prison for it?

    "What are you in for?"
    "Pig caught me smoking dope"
    "But its legal now?"
    "It wasn't a year ago when I got caught."

  10. Post
    #35
    JoeSkie wrote:
    Heck, they could even add some tax to it and spend that tax money on health and education.
    Don't worry about that, the government will tax the shit out of legal weed.

    I hope a portion of the tax on weed helps with our meth problem.

  11. Post
    #36
    teelo7 wrote:
    If it passes, how does it work for people already in prison for it?

    "What are you in for?"
    "Pig caught me smoking dope"
    "But its legal now?"
    "It wasn't a year ago when I got caught."
    This legislation is for personal use and not illicit distribution
    So I’d imagine drug dealers would still be locked up
    But anyone done for personal consumption will likely have their conviction squashed- both those recent and historically

  12. Post
    #37
    teelo7 wrote:
    If it passes, how does it work for people already in prison for it?

    "What are you in for?"
    "Pig caught me smoking dope"
    "But its legal now?"
    "It wasn't a year ago when I got caught."
    That sounds like a scene out of Shortland St.

  13. Post
    #38
    So long as they keep drug driving laws... I have no problem with this on the grounds of personal use. Just take your own mental health issues and suitability into account first please. Driving while stoned is just as much of an impairment as driving whilst drunk and this needs to be taken into account.

  14. Post
    #39
    Chunky wrote:
    With company directors being responsible for Health and Safety issues I doubt anything significant will change. Those who care have probably already opted for saliva based testing.
    Its greater than even company directors. Coming from a construction background, it is often the client that requests drug tests, or can show a history of testing the sub-contractors as part of the H&S aspect in selecting a contractor. Secondly, with ACC accreditation, drug testing is one of the items that is required to gain greater standing. A company is assessed by having primary, secondary or tertiatry accrediation, the better the they are, the lower their ACC levy.

  15. Post
    #40
    swazi wrote:
    I think he's in the closet
    he's in cabinet actually dumb ass

  16. Post
    #41
    Remember when they wanted to change the flag? This will go the same way.

    There is a very vocal minority who will get struck down by a large silent majority.

    And what happens when it is a binding "no" vote? Does that mean they never bring it up again?

  17. Post
    #42
    swazi wrote:
    Its greater than even company directors. Coming from a construction background, it is often the client that requests drug tests, or can show a history of testing the sub-contractors as part of the H&S aspect in selecting a contractor. Secondly, with ACC accreditation, drug testing is one of the items that is required to gain greater standing. A company is assessed by having primary, secondary or tertiatry accrediation, the better the they are, the lower their ACC levy.
    It's usually more about price and who knows who, if we're being honest. There's plenty of companies in that sector who test for drugs but only really care about P heads, or if you are intoxicated (by any means) when theres an accident.

    I guess there's the ACC thing but I think the compliance costs might counter the savings in levies.

  18. Post
    #43
    I dont smoke weed but I would still vote yes.

  19. Post
    #44
    bradc wrote:
    It's usually more about price and who knows who, if we're being honest. There's plenty of companies in that sector who test for drugs but only really care about P heads, or if you are intoxicated (by any means) when theres an accident.
    Maybe for small clients, although I agree with the who knows who/business relations. Company I work for does lots of work for uni's, chain businesses and large companies like Fletchers where the H&S track record is a large consideration, heard it from the clients myself as to why we were selected. And I know we charge big coin, more than most of our competitors and we keep getting their business.

  20. Post
    #45
    brand wrote:
    Remember when they wanted to change the flag? This will go the same way.

    There is a very vocal minority who will get struck down by a large silent majority.

    And what happens when it is a binding "no" vote? Does that mean they never bring it up again?
    I dunno but I can't see it happening. There's not the same amount of moral panic out there about cannabis as there was 40 years ago.

  21. Post
    #46
    swazi wrote:
    Maybe for small clients, although I agree with the who knows who/business relations. Company I work for does lots of work for uni's, chain businesses and large companies like Fletchers where the H&S track record is a large consideration, heard it from the clients myself as to why we were selected. And I know we charge big coin, more than most of our competitors and we keep getting their business.
    If you do the whole health and safety thing there's more coin for sure, but it's a pain the in arse, you have to be at a level where you can afford multiple dedicated health and safety officers on the payroll.

    Ultimately it's all about absolving yourself of responsibility. It's pretty common now for a construction company to make everyone responsible for themselves.

  22. Post
    #47
    SL1CKSTA wrote:
    He gets mad
    He raises some good points.

  23. Post
    #48
    swazi wrote:
    Maybe for small clients, although I agree with the who knows who/business relations. Company I work for does lots of work for uni's, chain businesses and large companies like Fletchers where the H&S track record is a large consideration, heard it from the clients myself as to why we were selected. And I know we charge big coin, more than most of our competitors and we keep getting their business.
    which uni drug tests their staff, most of us would have to go on sabbatical and our research output would plummet if testing was announced lol

    unless this isn't for faculty/admin/office employees

  24. Post
    #49
    Gesellschaft wrote:
    which uni drug tests their staff, most of us would have to go on sabbatical and our research output would plummet if testing was announced lol

    unless this isn't for faculty/admin/office employees
    Use your academic ability to re-read what Ive written and see that I never claimed the uni drug tested their staff, although they should, considering some of the interactions Ive had with some of their staff. My assertion was that due to good health and safety practices, one of which is a strong drug policy, it makes the uni warm and fuzzy in terms of giving us continued work.

  25. Post
    #50
    ahhh ye misread