Seems pretty gutsy to me but good on them. I like to see a political party commit like that to a controversial issue. Wonder how much research went into this decision, and why isn't this front page news?
The real question I have is how many oil & gas companies, auto makers, etc are going to allow rig workers/heavy equipment operators and the like, to get stoned at work?
In the case of ANY business, you'd think productivity would go right down the tubes. Will there be a limit of how stoned you can get at work, just as there's usually a 1-2 beer at lunch rule with some companies?
I doubt that the rules are going to change in industries that require drug tests for example.
Just because smoking pot is legal doesn't mean that its allowable in the workplace.
That's usually pretty clear in the workplace contract or employee handbook
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Pandering to a group of people who will probably forget to show up and vote. This will be fun to watch.
This is a lot more than just pandering to potheads. I don't use marijuana, but I think our current prohibition policy is incredibly costly with little societal benefit. Anyone who cares about fiscal responsibility (which I assume includes most Conservative Party voters) should support decriminalization.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
This is a lot more than just pandering to potheads. I don't use marijuana, but I think our current prohibition policy is incredibly costly with little societal benefit. Anyone who cares about fiscal responsibility (which I assume includes most Conservative Party voters) should support decriminalization.
I absolutely support decrimilization with conditions.
Treat it the same way as smokes when it comes to minors.
If you want to grow and sell dope, then you have to get a tax number and declare taxes, if you get caught without it, then revenue Canada is informed.
It can only be sold in liquor stores, if you're selling it yourself treat it like a smuggling cigarettes offense.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Seems pretty gutsy to me but good on them. I like to see a political party commit like that to a controversial issue. Wonder how much research went into this decision, and why isn't this front page news?
Because, at present, the Liberal party is nearly irrelevant. This pot legalization issue is symptomatic of a party whose governing philosophy is to say anything and promise to do anything that will gain or retain power. The problem with trying to be the ever expanding 'big tent' and by trying to offer something to nearly everyone is that you end up with no ideas, beliefs or principles to call your own. From PET til today the Fiberals have embodied political pragmatism at its worst. Other than pursuit of power, I don't think the average Canadian has any idea of what Liberals think is important in 2012 hence their well earned irrelevance.
Is this really a good platform to run on to erode the conservatives lead ? I understand that it will get some NDPers onboard, but If anything this reeks like a move just to get into the opposition chair next election and I am unsure it really will let them take a run a the conservatives next election.
This is independant of the issue of Pot legalization, which frankly I am indifferent on. Decriminilization is likely the better option anyways.
am i the only one who looked at that link and thought it was a site called The Cronic Herald?
The Following User Says Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
I agree that a test for intoxication levels is probably needed before it can be legalized. I have no idea if it can be done but something similar to the 0.08 level for alcohol. There is also the problem for employees who undergo drug testing. Currently, I am subject to random drug and alcohol tests. When selected I go to a nurse and blow in a breathalyzer to check for intoxication at that time. I also submit a urine sample to check for any drugs in my system. If marijuana was legal then the company couldn't dismiss me for having trace amounts in my system, they would have to prove that I was impaired on the job.
The Following User Says Thank You to GP_Matt For This Useful Post:
I agree that a test for intoxication levels is probably needed before it can be legalized. I have no idea if it can be done but something similar to the 0.08 level for alcohol. There is also the problem for employees who undergo drug testing. Currently, I am subject to random drug and alcohol tests. When selected I go to a nurse and blow in a breathalyzer to check for intoxication at that time. I also submit a urine sample to check for any drugs in my system. If marijuana was legal then the company couldn't dismiss me for having trace amounts in my system, they would have to prove that I was impaired on the job.
who says they have to go by the letter of the law? companies could still have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to pot, couldn't they?
I agree that a test for intoxication levels is probably needed before it can be legalized. I have no idea if it can be done but something similar to the 0.08 level for alcohol. There is also the problem for employees who undergo drug testing. Currently, I am subject to random drug and alcohol tests. When selected I go to a nurse and blow in a breathalyzer to check for intoxication at that time. I also submit a urine sample to check for any drugs in my system. If marijuana was legal then the company couldn't dismiss me for having trace amounts in my system, they would have to prove that I was impaired on the job.
Don't they use the pupil chart right now to see if your impaired? Not very scientific.
I don't know how they can test for impairment outside of alcohol right now.
There must be a way to test dependent on the levels in your piss.
Which would be funny if your roadside test was a pee test.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
who says they have to go by the letter of the law? companies could still have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to pot, couldn't they?
It seems like they would have trouble in court if the policy banned a legal activity done in your leisure time that didn't affect the safety of you or fellow employees.
A: This will never be campaigned on, because...
B: The future leadership will still have a veto on policy (that was reaffirmed at the convention).
C: You folk are talking about it so if grabbing attention was the idea... mission accomplished.
D: The process stuff was the main function of the convention (Supporter Class, Powers granted therein, Party President Election). Of which I think they got more things right then they got wrong.
As far as "partaking" goes... I haven't in a very long time (nor do I intend to in the future) but put me down as being in favor of anything that takes a multi-billion dollar revenue stream out of the hands of gangsters and other violent criminals and into the hands of honest merchants where it can undergo safety & quality assurance testing/regulation and where it can emerge from the underground economy into the above ground economy where it can be taxed, the proceeds of which can go towards any number of worthy area's.
I know our D&A policy at work is pretty strict, and I don't see that changing with the legalization of pot, as we perform very safety sensitive work. At our D&A training they said that pot stays in your system for 14 days, and if you are tested after a safety incident and test positive you're let go. At the same time, if you test positive for any alcohol (also a legal substance) you can also be let go. I don't see any of that changing.
I'm all for legalization, btw, and I agree with MarchHare about why the Libs did this. I think it's pretty smart.
I absolutely support decrimilization with conditions.
Treat it the same way as smokes when it comes to minors.
This makes sense to me on a certain level. If adults want to smoke go right ahead but I have a real problem sending a message to 13-18 year olds that smoking dope is OK because it is not illegal.
I'd support a system of severe penalties for supplying youths with pot. I'd be in favour of stiffer penalties for supplying cigarettes and booze as well. Kids just aren't mature enough to make wise decisions about these products IMO.
....Kids just aren't mature enough to make wise decisions about these products IMO.
same goes for tobacco and alcohol though. why is pot treated different?
kids shouldnt be using any of thes products and the law says they arent allowed to either.
hows that working?
if a kid wants to drink, he will find a way.
if a kid wants to smoke pot, he will find a way.
why should we let the profits goto brutal gangs and syndicates while we spend millions (billions?) fighting it?
a reallocation of resources makes sense. take the money being spent on keeping it illegal and instead spend it on education, health, and helping families create enviroments for kids and those at risk to make other choices.
