Shoot the Messenger

[Sportsman]

I thought the point of this thread was around the sacking of the advisor just because you don't like what they're advising Personal opinions as to individual experiences with drugs are frankly irrelevant. The point is that the government sacked someone for giving advise that they asked him to do - that is frankly disgusting.

 

I'm not naive enough to believe that the government always listens to the advise and that political point scoring doesn't happen, but most of the time the advisors are just ignored rather than sacked.

 

Rob.

 

It's in the nature of fora to drift off subject from time to time.

This one is no exception

[Jim Roper]

Dont agree, cannabis is dangerous, but so is booze and fags, but to set this sort of example as It's all right to smoke cannabis to kids is just plain reckless, but glad your pot smoking uni friends have flourished and are now model citizens, nothing like a good role model for kids to aspire to

 

Darn it! I find myself agreeing with Rabbit again.

[Steve Walker]

I know some people who would probably live better and more productive lives if they didn't smoke so much dope. I also know some people who have been using it for many years and to whom it seems to do no harm whatsoever. Just like most of us can take a drink when we please while others ruin their lives with it.

 

Like alcohol, it is a powerful psychoactive substance, and using it carries some risks. Unlike alcohol, it does not cause physical dependency, is not acutely or chronically toxic, contains no calories and is not linked to violence. The only real medical risks to physical (rather than mental) health are related to smoking it - which you don't have to do. In fact, I would say that the greatest risk is that people mix it with tobacco, a really nasty, addictive drug.

 

I think sacking an advisor because telling the truth undermines policy indicates that policy is wrong.

[Jim Roper]

My brother smoked it. It turned him into a person that i wanted to hate. When he was without, his demeaner until he got his fix was impossible to like. When he had his smokes he certainly wasn't fit for work (building trade) and nor would i allow him to.

I have sacked stupid idiots who i have caught smoking on the job.

 

Harmless, i don't think so.

 

As regards to this geezer getting the sack, good.

 

I wouldn't want to be working in a trench with a digger driver who is smoking dope, nor on a scaffold with a spaced out forklift driver approaching it.

Been there, done that.

There needs to be simple tests like drink-drive tests to decide whether or not someone is fit/safe to work.

 

Now, why did somebody say:

"If you can remember the 60's, you weren't there"

Edited November 3, 2009 by Jim Roper

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

I wouldn't want to be working in a trench with a digger driver who is smoking dope, nor on a scaffold with a spaced out forklift driver approaching it.

Been there, done that.

There needs to be simple tests like drink-drive tests to decide whether or not someone is fit/safe to work.

 

I believe tests on driving ability under the influence of cannabis were inconclusive?

[Sportsman]

I wouldn't want to be working in a trench with a digger driver who is smoking dope, nor on a scaffold with a spaced out forklift driver approaching it.

Been there, done that.

There needs to be simple tests like drink-drive tests to decide whether or not someone is fit/safe to work.

 

Now, why did somebody say:

"If you can remember the 60's, you weren't there"

 

TBH I wouldn't want to be on the drill floor of an oil rig with a driller who is so hungover that he can't think straight.

Been there and done that, and a miracle that I, and others, weren't killed.

It aint the drug that is dangerous in these circumstances, it is the ****head who used it

[Jim Roper]

TBH I wouldn't want to be on the drill floor of an oil rig with a driller who is so hungover that he can't think straight.

Been there and done that, and a miracle that I, and others, weren't killed.

It aint the drug that is dangerous in these circumstances, it is the ****head who used it

 

I thought booze was banned on oil rigs.

[Jim Roper]

I believe tests on driving ability under the influence of cannabis were inconclusive?

 

So ban it until there are conclusive tests.

 

Not being able to prove a negative should not be able to circumvent safety.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Jim Roper

[Steve Walker]

So ban it until there are conclusive tests.

 

Not being able to prove a negative should not be able to circumvent safety.

 

It is already illegal to drive impaired by any drugs, legal or otherwise. And cannabis is already illegal to own or use.

 

I've got at least two legal drugs in the house that I would absolutely not be willing to drive on - one of them a prescription painkiller, the other an over-the-counter antihistamine. In fact, I'd rather be driven by a taxi driver who'd had a spliff than one who had either of those in his system.

[kleinboet]

To all of you who say that the advisor's should not be sacked because they disagree with the government, may I remind you all of how many times has a judge been condemned for giving a lenient sentence. Both advisor's and judges are HUMAN and are capable of making a mistake.

 

Now, down to the Cannabis thing, why don't those in favour speak to the psychologists who treat those who's minds are "frazzled" with use of the drug.

Brenda is a licenced user of the drug Sativex, which is an oromucular spray, based on Cannabis (and smells and, according to her tastes, like a rubbish heap! I have been told that it is only given to terminally ill patients on a "named" basis. Brenda has progressive MS, is registered deaf/blind and has lost all feeling below her waist, which is why she has a super-pubic catheter and is wheelchair bound.

I have been told that her outlook is "bleak"!