Quote:


Well I do not have the statistics, but I do have a long enough memory to remember when everyone drove pissed, really, really pissed.

We used to joke about it, "who is the most pissed? they can drive us home, ha, ha"

I remember driving home one night, and I just aimed for the white line in the middle of the thirty or forty white lines blurred in front of me.
I drove when I was too pissed to walk.
It was moronically stupid, and happened all the time.

The simple change from that attitude, to the one we see today, where anyone who even thought about driving drunk would be castigated by mates and strangers alike, to not be a bloody idiot, is certainly what I put the major drop in road toll figures down too.

Quote:


And here is where you have been fooled Mozz.
18 - 25yr olds like to be bloody idiots. They know it and accept it, just as you did. But they also know that they are nearing the major strength of any society, and this is true.
When you became all growed up (as in losing reflex response), you realised that the acts of bravado that you performed could have so easily been detrimental in so many ways, but you did them anyway, as did I.
The attitude that has been changed is the belief that hindering the natural development of young people will be a service to society. It won't, it will be a fkcuing disaster.
So please look over the stats in an open minded manner and you will find that the displayed figures are at best creative accountancy, but in truth they are downright lies.
The law should work within the bounds of what people are, not within the imaginings of what would seem nice. There's no use in robbing Peter to pay Paul; Peter has been pillaged to within an inch of his very existence.

Any thoughts of forcefully creating an imagined younger generation that
operates as you didn't or couldn't should be well and truly tucked away.

Quote:


One moment please (you should remember that one).
What is it exactly that you think that I am proffering?
I'm by no means suggesting that blood alcohol testing should not be allowed. All that I'm saying is to consider the other factors involved before stating that the road toll has been cut predominantly due to blood alcohol testing.
The real contradiction lies within Muso's stats that say that the effects of alcohol still exist to a great extent even after it is no longer detectable.

What I am saying is that drug testing is worth 2/10ths of fukc all. Cannabis may be detected long after it ever had any effect on competency, of which is arguable in itself. And depending on the method of testing employed, all sorts of results may be ascertained regarding perceived competency which in fact is no more useful than ascertaining which side of the bed an individual got out from.

But back the point of acohol testing being the predominant factor in cutting the road toll. Do you agree or disagree with my assumptions of what the true stats would show?
Do you remember when there was a large push by society to make roads safer for such things like: level crossings, blind spots, dangerous obstacles,
black ice..etc.?
Do you remember the introduction of roundabouts?
Do you remember owning a vehicle without abs, traction control or even power steering? Do you remember owning a vehicle which handled like a boat?
And do you remember when the shift occured to throw the blame back on society? The media added the line: "Police say that alcohol was the cause".
Now what we see is : "Police say that speed was the major contributing factor". Which is true, because if the vehicle wasn't moving then it wouldn't have come to a sudden stop.

Quote:

That's a really disturbing comment Mozz, extremely disturbing.
In a nutshell, you are saying "Don't do as I did, be as I am now".
"Don't learn, don't grow..just be what I say you are."

You are talking about contradiction? "Society lacks any rite of passage in our culture" WTF!!  
Society has every rite in every culture. Without society, there is no bloody culture. Are you confusing the chicken with the egg?

Being a bit of a poker player, I sincerely hope that you are just trying to fire me up on that one.
I really really hope that's what you were trying to do with your inane logic, otherwise Mantra is very right in her insinuation that you've totally lost the plot.

Quote:


Maybe I went off a bit half-cocked there, my apologies.
Yes I agree that kids don't have much structure to follow. But most have more common sense than they are given credit for and they'll see through the lies that society puts before them. Creating more lies doesn't go anywhere towards providing them more structure, it just builds another wall to tear down when the truth is discovered.
The truth is that many drugs can enhance performance for the short term.

If a truck driver is foolishly going to attempt to drive from Melbourne to Darwin and back in one hit, then I'd hope that he/she has some good drugs on board. The advent of log books may have helped to stamp out this type of behavior by drivers or their pressuring employers, but it still happens. So there's yet another factor that you may have overlooked when assuming that breath testing is practically the sole reason for lowering the road toll.

Would I condone taking drugs to enhance performance or experience in some areas? Not at all, ..well maybe. The truth is that they can be an enhancement. I probably would've never listened to 'the beatles' music, or many other bands, if they had never taken drugs.
The point is that it's none of my business to judge anybody because they may have residual substances in their system and i don't like to be judged in that way either.

The initial point of the topic was not to debate the finer details, but to gauge a line of acceptence. Unfortunately, I am disappointed.
My first ever experience with a drug test was unsavory to say the least.
Firstly, I was required to fill in and sign a questionnaire about what I may have ingested over the past ten days, to which I stated that I had a bit of a cold (from working in the elements all night) but had only taken a few panadeine.
I was then required to empty my pockets and piss on demand with the nurse listening on to make sure that I was actually pissing as instructed.
I was then notified that something had shown up and was required to fill in and sign another form to release my sample for further testing.
For a $100 fee I could contest the finding that I had told them in the first place.
"Doesn't the result show that it's a bit of codeine, like I said?", I asked. "It probably is (ie: you're probably telling the truth) but it needs further testing".
"How long will that take?", I asked.  "A couple of days" she said.

After 3 weeks, I finally got the all clear and won the right to continue to work in the freezing cold performing the same tasks that I have been for the past six months without incident or any reason to suspect that I may be under the influence (because I never have been) while at work.
Only now, if I want to keep my job, I need to fill in more forms contractually agreeing to ongoing random drug and alcohol testing.

Rite of passage? Don't even bother trying to fit into this load of poo young brothers and sisters.









i

Thanks for giving more detail there Ammad, it certainly shows why it would be annoying, and I think your circumstance is really more about the whole nanny state/big brother mentality that seems to be pervading every walk of life.

Now I accept that in some instances there is real need to police people's behaviour, for the greater good, but the boundaries are very much being blurred, when employers see drug testing as a tool to target workers they have concerns about for reasons other than safety.
There is also the trade off between the good we see from living in a safer environment, and the lack of spontaneity and excitement that probably provided many of us with our proudest and fondest memories.

I was a keen surfer, especially bigger surf, as well as loving rock climbing, snow skiing, sailing, even just jumping off cliffs into the sea, or pools for fun, in other words, some pretty high risk stuff, but all great fun, and the way we are going we will see governments wanting to protect us from exposing ourselves to such risky behaviours, which would see a major diminution of the joy of life for many people, and would be a horrible imposition on our freedoms.

I can see where we pose a significant risk to the well being of others, then our behaviours could be fairly restricted, but if we wish to be adrenaline junkies ourselves, then no bureaucrat should get in our way.
It is finding a sensible drawing of the lines between what is merely risky behaviour, and what is dangerously threatening to others, and we should be able to work that out without too much angst.

Quote:


Yes seatbelts are another factor. An Aussie invention I believe.
How many other factors besides the "fear factor" of RB testing have been discussed so far?
I haven't seen the graphs that you are talking about, but it would come as no surprise that a "fear factor" would come into play to a large degree there. Take for example, the AIDS fear factor. I'll bet that you saw a reduction in promiscuous sexual activity immediately after the "Grim Reaper" spoke his piece through the media.
But as Elaine Benice (Seinfeld) said, "Well, you know, you gotta live your life". And the orgies go on. Condoms being the major saving grace when they are used properly.


Quote:


The media pushes many points which I most often agree to have a lot of merit, but push it too far and it becomes a lie.
Are you remembering RB testing as being "THE" reason? The media always added lines like "alcohol was the major contributing factor", as they do today with their "Speed was the major contributing factor", whilst they rip money from people left right and centre to the detriment of society as a whole.

Not being in the 18-25 age group means that you don't see what goes on as you once did. I'm sure they still do some pretty crazy stuff.
But is it fair to be using drug tests in the workplace as a deterrent to what they might get up to on the weekends? I don't think so. I think that it would be more of a deterrent to getting a job.

You said that computer based impairment testing doesn't work. And you also said that you passed one of these tests when you decided yourself that you would not drive a motor vehicle in your then current condition.
There was nothing within the law that stated that you couldn't drive, so why didn't you just mindlessly drive?
You have to assume that if it is not written, then it's OK don't you? Why don't you just follow the law?
I think that a $400 obligation would be fair penance....don't you?

I can't see how you'd think that computer based simiulations using our current technology, tailored to meet the requirements of specifiic tasks, which could be assessed over multiple readings relative to previous results to provide an accurate assessment of current competency, are worth less than our current random drug testing system. They would seem to be of far greater benefit to me.




ii

Quote:


Why would I have anything against self-regulation? That's basically the entire point of my concern.  Self-regulation is the anti-thesis of being externally controlled and is the only real way forward IMO.
Education is far different than using fear as a tool. Fear is also a tool of God, but that's another story.
I say good for you that you choose to live all of your waking hours in regards to the stats that you have found to be true, but don't think for a minute that you are a messenger of God's ultimate plan.
There are others who are also free to choose their way, even if you might disagree with it.
The question is IMO, to what extent are they putting society at risk vs. the the risk of not allowing people to engage in some somewhat risky behavior?
A point that Mozz raised a few posts ago.

The risk is foregoing the freedoms that we have fought for to be self-regulating for the greater good. And that's just a personal opinion, I wouldn't want it to be enforced globally on my account.

But what I'm talking about is surrendering information to some other asshole who thinks that he/she is in charge of the wellbeing of society and it's future where I don't see fit.
I can self-regulate myself thankyou very much...can you?
If I choose to try a out a drug which will have no discernible effect by the time that I front up for work, then it's none of anybody else's business.

More often than not, those who spout that they have it all mapped out are the ones who display very extraordinary behaviour and they are most often the ones who fall to grief because they set themselves out of reach goals of enamouring a facade of being a direct descendant of God itself/whatself/whoself.

Do I want to protect my own self-interest to do drugs? Well, I might try something out once or twice a year, but alcohol is my vice, even though I always make sure that I front up for work sober. It's a pity that the company manager doesn't do the same...  but he is above the random testing so it doesn't matter to him.
And it's a also a pity that a certain St.Kilda supporting owner of the widespread company has a history of murder and running moonshine in his own residence.
Don't do as I did, do as I see fit now.

The company is of no concern to me. I do things, and pass over things in the workplacer now which in the past would have been of some concern to me, and that's because of the contempt I have for over the top rules and regulatios.iii

To that out of touch response Muso, I just threw my hands in the air and asked myself "Pffftt..why bother?"

Firstly, the short answer to contractors who have little or no idea as to workplace safety standards is to not have them at all if possible.
Secondly, if a contractor is required, they should be properly inducted and assessed to meet workplace requirements. Obviously this did not happen in the case of your cowboy plumber. And obviously a pre-employment drug test would not have revealed that he was wearing shorts where eyes would have.

Quote:


What you will end up with is a considerable amount of employees who are good at passing pre-employment screening. Not much else.

I don't agree at all that our OH&S standards are low, in fact I think that they are too strict in many departments regarding acceptable risk.

For example: The company employs a 10km/h onsite speed limit (to satisfy OH&S requirements) and requires that all employees sign documentation agreeing to adhere to speed limits, yet the workload requires that all employees at times travel onsite at 20km/h, and most often at 15 - 18km/h.

Management enforces that speed limits will be exceeded as long as their ass is covered by employee signitures.

If the existing employee will not sign, then there are others that will. And that's the basic company policy all over Australia. As long as they satisfy documentation and put the onus on the employee then all is well.
If the employee won't agree to overstep safety standards, then there are a zillion employment agencies who will supply workers with a "shorts and thongs" mentality to satisfy the requirements of both the agency and company management.

A common pre-employment check is to ascertan if the prospective employee has a mortgage. If so, they know that the prospective employee is malleable. They know that they will dance to the tune of company exploitation.

Getting back to drug testing and where the above fits into the argument: The standards are too high to meet with realistic company expectations and acceptable risk.
If an employee has an accident whilst travelling at 4km/h above the designated speed limit to that they have contractually agreed to, then of course they will be in breach of contract.
Similarly, with drug testing. If an employee is found to have any trace elements existing of a substance that they have contractually agreed to not have existing in any way in their system, regardless of how little impact on real performance, then they will be in breach of contract.

The real mentality is: The fear of losing your house, it's a brainstorm of Menzies that Howard ran with.
So forget "attitudes", it's all about the fear factor.

What is required is to make a realistic assessment between the relative impacts upon workplace safety, ie: between the "run of the mill" workplace pressures and practices and the impact of having smoked a joint within the past two weeks.

I'm sure there's a logical conclusion there somewhere as to where the "testing" is required. Test where testing is due.

Don't come atesting me fccuker, or I'll snot you one!  ...btw, not you muso - that hypocrite puppet fuccker who drives around in his little white van from workplace to workplace.ii