Newmarket Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) Think she was a Jockey way back. Seems a sad story. Edited July 10, 2019 by Newmarket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopia Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 Seem to recall her down our way ( Otago )...don't have to think too hard about whats happenned here..that fuckin' methamphetamine. And the coalition of losers want to decriminalise drugs. grass will just be the start. jeeze the havoc drugs are causing this country. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 yep. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newmarket Posted July 10, 2019 Author Share Posted July 10, 2019 15 minutes ago, Kopia said: Seem to recall her down our way ( Otago )...don't have to think too hard about whats happenned here..that fuckin' methamphetamine. And the coalition of losers want to decriminalise drugs. grass will just be the start. jeeze the havoc drugs are causing this country. Thats sad if it is P. Just look what it did to Lisa Cropp. I assume she is related to Daniel Stackhouse? I dont know much about the family? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 she is from Ashburton Daniels sister family farmed in ashburton 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mumbles Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 16 hours ago, Kopia said: Seem to recall her down our way ( Otago )...don't have to think too hard about whats happenned here..that fuckin' methamphetamine. And the coalition of losers want to decriminalise drugs. grass will just be the start. jeeze the havoc drugs are causing this country. A report from A&E in Denvers main hospital says that since cannabis has become legal in Colorado,the hospital Emergency room has seen 5 times the amount of young adults suffering from a Psychotic Episode. Agree with your comments 100% 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) 16 hours ago, Kopia said: Seem to recall her down our way ( Otago )...don't have to think too hard about whats happenned here..that fuckin' methamphetamine. And the coalition of losers want to decriminalise drugs. grass will just be the start. jeeze the havoc drugs are causing this country. 100% with you there....however, don't have an issue with the medical variety. I find interesting the stats from the USA however, which appear to indicate no increase in use as a result of the legalisation of the stuff. Are we to believe them? ..or are Americans just different....or are the stats ' manipulated' to tell the story as they want.... Edited July 10, 2019 by Freda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 21 minutes ago, Freda said: 100% with you there....however, don't have an issue with the medical variety. I find interesting the stats from the USA however, which appear to indicate no increase in use as a result of the legalisation of the stuff. Are we to believe them? ..or are Americans just different....or are the stats ' manipulated' to tell the story as they want.... Depends which stats you look at. I seen some that indicate the complete opposite. The thing that gets me is the hypocrisy. The Government has an agenda to eliminate smoking of tobacco but are going to promote smoking of a different weed! Go figure! The stats do show that there is an increase in marijuana consumption especially amongst the young. Considering there is also old research that shows those that advance to harder recreational drugs start out with marijuana you would expect over time that an increase in other drug use would occur. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 A study across many countries of cannabis use: https://www.thejournal.ie/cannabis-legalisation-increase-impact-4644673-May2019/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 44 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: A study across many countries of cannabis use: https://www.thejournal.ie/cannabis-legalisation-increase-impact-4644673-May2019/ It seems from that that evidence is, at best, inconclusive. However, as an employer [ albeit of a very limited number ] the message that its now ' okay ' to smoke openly, and to present at work stoned, is unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 13 minutes ago, Freda said: It seems from that that evidence is, at best, inconclusive. However, as an employer [ albeit of a very limited number ] the message that its now ' okay ' to smoke openly, and to present at work stoned, is unacceptable. Which is another unintended consequence of a change in policy. Employer costs will rise - you will be responsible for drug testing and will drug driving and other negative consequences of being "stoned" increase? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 As yet there doesn't appear to be universal acceptance that 'drug testing' drivers is a satisfactory or accurate process ; and I certainly couldn't afford to routinely drug test employees - unless a simple, cheap and accurate process is developed. Which leaves me and others like me between a rock and a hard place. The most recent drug testing carried out at the track here produced a few positives to cannabis, and a couple to P. Those two samples were subsequently tested more rigorously and found to be 'false positives ' whatever that is. However, a local girl who is a well known stoner and freely admits to ' having a cone' before coming to work daily, tested negative. She even told the RIU members present ' don't waste your time, I'm done, I'll be positive' and tested negative..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newmarket Posted July 11, 2019 Author Share Posted July 11, 2019 Is this the cone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopia Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 25 minutes ago, Newmarket said: Is this the cone? Sheeeet hope it aint, I've got a couple of sacks of them in me fire wood shed. I'm a gonner. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 51 minutes ago, Freda said: As yet there doesn't appear to be universal acceptance that 'drug testing' drivers is a satisfactory or accurate process ; and I certainly couldn't afford to routinely drug test employees - unless a simple, cheap and accurate process is developed. Which leaves me and others like me between a rock and a hard place. The most recent drug testing carried out at the track here produced a few positives to cannabis, and a couple to P. Those two samples were subsequently tested more rigorously and found to be 'false positives ' whatever that is. However, a local girl who is a well known stoner and freely admits to ' having a cone' before coming to work daily, tested negative. She even told the RIU members present ' don't waste your time, I'm done, I'll be positive' and tested negative..... Sounds like the RIU might have their testing mucked up! Either that or the "local girl" is getting ripped off by her supplier! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 Don't put it into your horses feed! 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefton Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 Meth disappears from your system very quickly whereas if you have a long enough strand of hair they can tell if you have used cannabis in the last ten years. So you can have a P session over the weekend and test negative but smoke a joint Friday night and the following week the residue is still there Hence someone being sure they will be positive and not being to meth yet turning up a non negative(the way the drug testers describe it) days later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 53 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Sounds like the RIU might have their testing mucked up! Either that or the "local girl" is getting ripped off by her supplier! Yeah...a local wit reckoned she was being given Lucerne.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Reefton said: Meth disappears from your system very quickly whereas if you have a long enough strand of hair they can tell if you have used cannabis in the last ten years. So you can have a P session over the weekend and test negative but smoke a joint Friday night and the following week the residue is still there Hence someone being sure they will be positive and not being to meth yet turning up a non negative(the way the drug testers describe it) days later Sorry may have been a bit ambiguous....the 'negative' test for the girl was for cannabis....and given her history there is no way it could or should have been .. The ' positives' were for methamphetamine, and later turned out to be negative. All in all, not very reliable results all round. Edited July 11, 2019 by Freda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefton Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 16 hours ago, Freda said: Sorry may have been a bit ambiguous....the 'negative' test for the girl was for cannabis....and given her history there is no way it could or should have been .. The ' positives' were for methamphetamine, and later turned out to be negative. All in all, not very reliable results all round. The systems for testing are pretty thorough Pam and certified so I suspect it is more likely the other way around. The ability to detect cannabis use from long ago via a hair strand is fact (provided they undertake that hair test that is) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefton Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 21 hours ago, Freda said: Sorry may have been a bit ambiguous....the 'negative' test for the girl was for cannabis....and given her history there is no way it could or should have been .. The ' positives' were for methamphetamine, and later turned out to be negative. All in all, not very reliable results all round. The meth 'positive' (they actually call it 'non negative') would show correctly that there were meth traces. The ultimate non positive finding is to do with thresholds(ie there is meth there but below the thresholds). The on site test only shows up the presence of drugs in the system not the level(when there is an indication they send it to the lab for further analysis). I asked the drug testing people about the possibility of the same person getting an incorrect negative test for cannabis and an incorrect positive test for meth at the same time - they laughed. I am a little carried away re the cannabis hair thing - that is only in they are a regular user. A one off puff is not going to taint your body forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 Not for the same person, Reefton...the meth ' positives ' were for two different people. The cannabis ' negative ' was for a girl who smokes every day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefton Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 5 hours ago, Freda said: Not for the same person, Reefton...the meth ' positives ' were for two different people. The cannabis ' negative ' was for a girl who smokes every day. Well the plot thickens. Your post implied that we were dealing with the same person. What we are dealing with is a one possible wrong result(given that the meth one, if what you say is correct, seems likely to have been a question not of whether there was meth present but what the level was). Can I ask what those at the Riccarton track are doing making use of someone who they apparently know is an habitual cannabis user? In the event there was an incident how well would that reflect on the Industry overall? OSH would just love it. And if you were the unlucky one for whom this person happened to be working at the time I suspect we might have another S McKee situation only with a hell of a lot more culpability given it seems everyone knows of the danger. And it might not even be your horse he/she is in charge of but because you allowed someone to potentially be in harms way AND something happens to your staff member then that could be construed as negligence. And here's me thinking Bernard and John had lot to answer for in regards the reputation of the NZ Racing Industry. I hope your legal costs insurance is up to date (though one of the things the insured is responsible for is to ensure that the insurer is not - knowingly - put in a position where there is a possible claim on the policy) Dear oh dear! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 You're quite right in what you say, apart from the fact that the girl concerned is not employed - at the moment. I know her well however, she used to lodge with me. This scenario would be consistent country-wide and will be even harder to 'police ' when these nutters decriminalise cannabis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefton Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 2 hours ago, Freda said: You're quite right in what you say, apart from the fact that the girl concerned is not employed - at the moment. I know her well however, she used to lodge with me. This scenario would be consistent country-wide and will be even harder to 'police ' when these nutters decriminalise cannabis. Fair comment but you can be sure the 'employer' will still be in the gun if there is an incident involving someone under the influence and people know about it. The CJC and or NZTR could even be dragged into it for tolerating it. Bearing in mind 'employed' might just be riding one work for someone. Doesn't necessarily mean full time employment. Danger danger danger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.