Ecstasy, LSD and cannabis Options

[Andy1]

Agreed.



You must be blind, examples come up easily, however, opinion on the subject is divided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...act/163/12/2134
http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNvol18N4/Twins.html
http://www.trushare.com/High%20Time/Brett.htm

User23 isn't blind, heshe just didn't look

[user23]

Yes, and your point is?

A recreational activity doesn't have to be a physical one.

This is a no win situation as I see it at the moment.

Only if you think the taking of drugs (legal or otherwise) is always bad.

I happen to think that's not the case.

[Biker1]

A recreational activity doesn't have to be a physical one.Only if you think the taking of drugs (legal or otherwise) is always bad.

I happen to think that's not the case.

How do you think most users (legal or otherwise) pay for their drugs? (OK the legal ones it's us the taxpayer. Or by legal do you mean alcohol & nicotene?)

[Iommi]

A recreational activity doesn't have to be a physical one.Only if you think the taking of drugs (legal or otherwise) is always bad.

No that's not it at all.

I happen to think that's not the case.

It is this point.

Few things are always bad, or good for that matter. If drug taking was always bad, or good, then it would be a lot easier to make one's mind up.

How would you suggest that the law should be changed?

[JeffG]

Watching TV is a recreational activity and is hardly the same as kicking a football around.

Yes, and your point is?

A recreational activity doesn't have to be a physical one.

Who said anything about being physical or not? I just gave an example of a recreational activity.

What does any of this have to do with taking drugs?

[Jayjay]

The media is being a bit naughty with its headlines. The expert said that cigs and booze cause more DEATHS than LSD, cannabis. Put in this context I think the government was possibly correct - well there is a first for everything.

I think I would rather be stuck in a lift with someone who had just put a cigarette out or a worker who had a couple of drinks on the way home than a drug user.

[user23]

The media is being a bit naughty with its headlines. The expert said that cigs and booze cause more DEATHS than LSD, cannabis. Put in this context I think the government was possibly correct - well there is a first for everything.

I think I would rather be stuck in a lift with someone who had just put a cigarette out or a worker who had a couple of drinks on the way home than a drug user.

Someone who had just put a cigarette out or a worker who had a couple of drinks on the way home (I presume you mean of the alcoholic variety) are drug users.

[JeffG]

I think you know what he means.

[user23]

I think you know what he means.

Yes, he means he'd rather share a lift with someone who had been partaking of legal drugs rather then illegal ones. He's displaying the old stereotypes of the worker who's had a couple of beers and the unemployed drug user.

I wonder if they were all legal would he still have a problem?

I wonder if he was educated on the effects of them (going back to the original post), again would he still have a these ingrained ideas about their users?

[Iommi]

I wonder if they were all legal would he still have a problem?

I would. I have worked with heavy drinkers and with substance abusers. The substance abusers are always more unpredictable than the drinkers. Anyone with a really bad habit is often dealt with easily. With drinkers you can tell easily if or when they have and if they are pissed. With substance abusers this is not so easy.

[user23]

I would. I have worked with heavy drinkers and with substance abusers. The substance abusers are always more unpredictable than the drinkers. Anyone with a really bad habit is often dealt with easily. With drinkers you can tell easily if or when they have and if they are pissed. With substance abusers this is not so easy.

He wasn't talking about heavy drinkers, he said "a worker who had a couple of drinks".

If the comparison is to be fair he wasn't talking about a substance abuser either, just a casual user.

[On the edge]

I would. I have worked with heavy drinkers and with substance abusers. The substance abusers are always more unpredictable than the drinkers. Anyone with a really bad habit is often dealt with easily. With drinkers you can tell easily if or when they have and if they are pissed. With substance abusers this is not so easy.

Have to agree with this and have seen the effects for real. These were office workers as well. Almost folded the firm. Now we have quite an enlightened policy - we'll help you off any drugs; so long as you admit there is a problem. If not, the door is always open, in these cases it has to be.

[Hugh Saskin]

Have to agree with this and have seen the effects for real. These were office workers as well. Almost folded the firm. Now we have quite an enlightened policy - we'll help you off any drugs; so long as you admit there is a problem. If not, the door is always open, in these cases it has to be.

Some firms go for random, unannounced, screening for drugs and alcohol (5% of the workforce p.a, possibly) - you agree to this when you join and they also explain that if you later tell them you have a problem, they will help you get it sorted. If you don't, and the Medscreen man tests you positive, then it's too late = out the door. In some industries, you are also looking at six moons inside if you are 'for cause' screened after an incident and the police get involved. The choice is yours, if you decide you want to work there in the first place.

[On the edge]

Some firms go for random, unannounced, screening for drugs and alcohol (5% of the workforce p.a, possibly) - you agree to this when you join and they also explain that if you later tell them you have a problem, they will help you get it sorted. If you don't, and the Medscreen man tests you positive, then it's too late = out the door. In some industries, you are also looking at six moons inside if you are 'for cause' screened after an incident and the police get involved. The choice is yours, if you decide you want to work there in the first place.

Certainly, the choice is yours. Two points, first, I would not want to be served by any organisation that employed staff in situations where their activities would be hindered by the abuse use of drugs. In my view, that includes all on the public payroll, I can make my own mind elsewhere. Second, if an individual does choose to abuse, then I should not be expected to pay for that; through unemployment benefits etc. Yes, you do have a choce BUT not at the expense of mine!

[JeffG]

I would not want to be served by any organisation that employed staff in situations where their activities would be hindered by the abuse of drugs.

Actually, that comment doesn't make much sense. So if your house was burning down, you wouldn't call the fire brigade, or if you were ill, you wouldn't want to be treated?

[On the edge]

Actually, that comment doesn't make much sense. So if your house was burning down, you wouldn't call the fire brigade, or if you were ill, you wouldn't want to be treated?

No I would NOT want to be treated by anyone drugged up - would you? Equally, I suspect my house might well have burned to the ground before a fire brigade so staffed. On a serious note, the emergency services are supposed to keep their wits about them - ANY deviation can cause serious issues to other parties. We know in Newbury just what happens when things go wrong on 999 calls where the staff driving aren't under the influence. Are you suggesting we should make it worse?

[JeffG]

This is getting a bit silly now. Of course I wouldn't want to be treated by anyone "drugged up". You didn't say that at all - you said anyone where their activitites would be hindered if they were on drugs. Of course they would be. Which is why I said it didn't make sense and chose the examples I did.

[Hugh Saskin]

In my view, that includes all on the public payroll, I can make my own mind elsewhere.

So it's ok, for instance, for a tyre fitter to be drugged up, or a chemist? Why just select the public sector?

[On the edge]

So it's ok, for instance, for a tyre fitter to be drugged up, or a chemist? Why just select the public sector?

Think it was you who wanted choice. Personally, I'd be more than happy if NO organisation permitted staff to do this. However, as you quite rightly say, everyone has a choice. I'd certainly not choose to use an organisation I felt didn't have appropriate safeguards like this - particularly where it comes to safety. And yes, I do ask, and yes I have taken business elsewhere. However, in the public sector - we have no choice. Perhaps an argument for small government?

[Hugh Saskin]

Think it was you who wanted choice. Personally, I'd be more than happy if NO organisation permitted staff to do this. However, as you quite rightly say, everyone has a choice. I'd certainly not choose to use an organisation I felt didn't have appropriate safeguards like this - particularly where it comes to safety. And yes, I do ask, and yes I have taken business elsewhere. However, in the public sector - we have no choice. Perhaps an argument for small government?

I was referring to chosing whether an individual wished to work for a firm that had a random drugs and alcohol screening policy for its staff, not whether to use the firm's services or not. Cannot see your course of action regarding asking an organisation each time if they have such a policy or not before using them as terribly practical, to be honest. Would you, for instance, ask Wightlink or Red Funnel line whether they routinely screen their deckhands before you decided to go for a day on the Isle of Wight - or whether there is a system in place for screening the tanker drivers who bring the fuel to the places you stop to buy petrol? (in the latter case, they probably do, actually)