Drugs in Shetland

[shetlandpeat]

Hold off with the accusations about folk who work for the council. You have no proof that SIC employees are at work under the influence of a narcotic.

If you do, then report it...but publicly posting it is not a good idea.

 

Right,

so any one in a position that may put others in danger should be banned from consumming alchohol for at least 3 days prior to doing said job.

same as smoking having watched folks get irate and lose concentration when they don't get their nicotine fix regularly enough.

tea and coffee the same goes for folks that drink a lot of those 2 substances.

 

So, that must include drivers, parents with children, MC at a wedding and so on....even folk who have employees.........Mmmmm

 

 

In my line of work you can't just light a fag anytime anywhere, and smokers loose focus when they are in need of nicotine, so I tend to let smokers have twice as many breaks as non smokers, better that than they make a mistake and kill us all.

so MIM does that answer your question

 

So, you are encouraging folk to smoke, which kills more folk than heroin, and could lead on to other smoking habits, I have said be for, I do not know of a non smoker who smokes hash. You should be, as a good employer, paying for folk to break the nicotine habbit, not good practice what you do now, and you do, I am sure allow non smokers the same amount of time off, and you must have built a shelter, how kind.

 

So, let us work this out, 8 hours, 5 or 6 cigarettes, 10 minutes a go, so each employee can have up to an hour off from their work station, remember, you double their cigarette breaks, 5 hours a week say 45 weeks a year, 225 hours a year or in other words, you pay your staff for over 5 weeks a year to smoke. You must give the non smokers an additional 5 weeks holidays to make it fair, I am sure you must be a fair employer..

 

You need to remove the "Christianne F" attitide about folk who indulge...

Tis not all squalor and deprovation.

 

When addicts have their fix, they are known as straight, ie, able to function, tis when the body needs more tis when the trouble started, as highlighted by you smoking breaks comment...so with your comment, it seems that folk who are addicted to opiates SHOULD be given their fix...so you can make money offa dem.

And folk can enjoy a drink without having to get wasted, it may be your experience, but you ar not ALL..

 

Ah but out here that would be putting many more lives in danger.

On the beach though I say tie them to a lamppost and let dugs piss on them

 

But you want all opiate users to die, y not cigarette smokers?

 

And have you thought about the amount of folk in the land, high on prescription opiates and other sedatives to help their mental illness's.

 

We should educate the younguns first, and help the others break any addition and make them productive..

 

You will not solve anything with the rod, tobbacco was smuggled into Shetland for years from Faroe, opiates were widley used in the Victorian times, and hash was ok when we needed rope.

 

All these things were punnishable one time or another yet they are still here...perhaps we should ban money, then the smugglers will not have an incentive...just a thought but an unrealistic one me thinks.

[Styles]

Every weekend I know tonnes of folks that take tonnes of assorted drugs, to (shock horror) have a good time, because they make you feel good. They all have jobs that they work hard at and are all nice people who are totally normal. Its a farce that they should be criminalised for makeing an adult decision what they do to their own bodies.

[sheepshagger]

Yet again SP you understand only what you want to.

 

When I employ somebody for the local buisness I own then there are no extra breaks to smoke fags and I have not built a shelter for them to smoke in.

Offshore in the oil field in my line of work a moments lapse in concentration can mean the death/injury of a lot of others on the rig.

I do not encourage them to smoke more I suggest methods of quitting fags like I used myself. but if they can not or will not quit there is very little I can do but make the best of a bad lot.

Smoking Canabis I would run their ass of the rig in a heartbeat if I thought they were doing it out here, if they wish to smoke it while at home then fair enough, as long as they are not doing it out here.

Smack I have yet to meet anyone who can take that sharn for a couple of weeks while at home then stop without it affecting their performance out here, so anyone known to take it would be run of the rig in a heart beat also.

Speed takes days sometimes weeks to get back on a even keel after taking so I would not be happy with a member of my crew working with that before coming out here.

Coke I know plenty of folk that use it recreationaly without any ill effects but I also know plenty of folk that struggle to get back to normal after taking it, but I would still run any one of the rig who I suspected of taking it while out here.

Pills of various forms mess with your head and are not welcome on the rig in any form.

So SP just to make it clear to you if it is going to affect their performance while at work then I will run them off for doing it if I can, but fags are not illegal and the only way round it for me as a supervisor is to allow them enough breaks to keep them at peak performance to do anything else would be putting my and many other lives in danger.

[paulb]

Every weekend I know tonnes of folks that take tonnes of assorted drugs, to (shock horror) have a good time, because they make you feel good. They all have jobs that they work hard at and are all nice people who are totally normal. Its a farce that they should be criminalised for makeing an adult decision what they do to their own bodies.

 

and the wife meets a fair few as they are wheeled into her ward. and a few don't self discharge the next day.

[sheepshagger]

So, you are encouraging folk to smoke, which kills more folk than heroin, and could lead on to other smoking habits, I have said be for, I do not know of a non smoker who smokes hash.

 

if the same number of folk took smack as smoked fags then smack would kill many many times more folk than fags do.

 

I know a fair few folk that smoke hash that never smoke fags.

 

seems I maybe have a better handle on this than you SP

[Fjool]

if the same number of folk took smack as smoked fags then smack would kill many many times more folk than fags do

I don't think this is necessarily the case.You are not comparing like situations.

 

Many more people used to smoke and eat opium, with fewer problems than heroin users today. Smack is a consequence of making opium illegal. As I suggested above, if fags were made illegal, then nicotine addicts might start dying suddenly too.

[sheepshagger]

ah now fjool you can't put the genie back in the bottle as they say, do you really think all the smack heads will convert to chewing opium or will they continue to chase and or inject smack.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of things going tits up for the opium users before prohabition so you are not quite right there either.

[Ghostrider]

....if fags were made illegal, then nicotine addicts might start dying suddenly too.

 

I don't think you necessarily need go as far as criminalise them, and arguably the situation is already on its way to creating deaths.

 

Perhaps not much up here, if at all, but the price of fags is such that there already exists a substantial thriving bootleg market, especially in population centres. There is little difference between them and any other without-standards manufacturing process, sooner or later something's going to get bunged in to a batch that will kill some of those that smoke them.

[shetlandpeat]

And it is not the opiate that kills, tis the folk who deal with it...

 

And your job is probably less dangerous than mine, you have many risk assessments built in....I have a few but rely on the thousands of motorists to obey the rules.. and some of them WILL be drunk or drugged.

 

And as my employer has instigated many programs for folk to stop smoking,

Yours does not trust so much and has mandatory drugs tests, which means that there may be conditions at the workplace that folk feel the need to get offa their face, which may point towards poor conditions at work, or even a situation where risks are not all accounted for, oh, there are casual opiate users, as there are folk who drink too xs and stop for work.

 

But with your comments that I quoted, you encourage smoking...

 

Who wants to smoke on a rig, maybe someone who has more thought for themselves than others?

 

But are you an employer in the real sense who can stop this or just a manager/suprvisor who can just suggest?

 

You have an obligation to the welfare of ALL employees, and they should all have the same rights and conditions, a safer place to work...

 

So, would you advocate no smoking rigs?

 

Then you could remove the folk who have so much carbon monoxide in their system they cannot think straight, or benzine, and nicotine.

 

That my friend is as dangerous.

 

Tis the legal drugs that cause more deaths and injuries.

 

But cos they are legal we think they are ok.

[sheepshagger]

And your job is probably less dangerous than mine, you have many risk assessments built in....I have a few but rely on the thousands of motorists to obey the rules.. and some of them WILL be drunk or drugged.

 

SP you really do write a load of drivell

 

risk assesments only work if the folk doing the job pay attention to what they are doing, a moments lapse of concentration could have disasterous results not just for the individual but for eveyone on the rig.

 

I have one of the most dangerous jobs in one of the most dangerous workplace's in the world, there are very few things out here that if you don't pay attention won't kill you.

That my friend is why the oil companies fly my workmates and I all over the world and pay us the money they do, we have proven time and time again that we can do a very stressfull and dangerous job safely and well, also when things go wrong we have the wit and presence of mind to recover the situation before disaster strikes.

I am sure if your job was as dangerous as you say then this would be reflected in the rewards (ie pay) you recieve, it certainly is in my case, I gaurantee I get paid more in a day than you get for a week of driving. let the figures speak for themselves SP.

 

And I drive while working onshore in parts of the world where black top roads are few and far between with other users that relly on the will of god (inshallah) to keep them safe as they drive towards you, far more scary than a pissed up englishman any day of the week.

 

And as my employer has instigated many programs for folk to stop smoking,

 

Yours does not trust so much and has mandatory drugs tests, which means that there may be conditions at the workplace that folk feel the need to get offa their face, which may point towards poor conditions at work, or even a situation where risks are not all accounted for,

 

Let me assure you that the oil companies provide free nicotine patches and other programs to help folk stop smoking, as for mandatory drug tests this is purely a means of weeding out the damn fools that can't or won't lay of the drugs while at work, Pot stays in your system for quite a while so unoficially if you fail on pot you are banned from working for them for 6 months if you fail on any of the other substances that are out your system in a day or two the your ass is down the road permanently.

 

Maybe they take drugs because they have been influenced by some muppet that tells them their drug habit is the fault of society and not because of a failing in the workplace, after all no one is forcing anybody to work out here.

 

And while we are on the subject, as you say I have to undergo mandatory drug testing to do my job and pay my tax to keep some lazy good for nothing on the dole, I say there should be mandatory drug testing for the unemployed get off your tits on my money then get my money no more.

[Claudias]

^ ^ ^

 

Footballers get more for ninety minutes than you get for the year. What does that say about their risk assessments?

[sheepshagger]

there are very few if any footballers that get more for 90 minutes than i get in a year.

[Claudias]

^ ^ ^

 

The analogy escapes you. Footballers are obscenely well paid because they are in the entertainment industry. You are well paid because you are in the oil industry NOT because you are in a dangerous trade. Soldiers in Helmand province face more danger in one day than you face in a year for a far smaller salary.

[Evil Inky]

In my line of work you can't just light a fag anytime anywhere, and smokers loose focus when they are in need of nicotine, so I tend to let smokers have twice as many breaks as non smokers, better that than they make a mistake and kill us all.

Airline pilots and surgeons have similar life-and-death responsibilities and can't take fag breaks at all. How do they manage, I wonder ?

[Evil Inky]

Ah, you may need to get with the times, drug tests can be done, with sweat, sputum and hair folicals.

As a cycling fan, I'm afraid I'm all up to date with drug testing Pro cyclists ( and other athletes ) are subjected to a combination of urine, hair, and blood tests - there's still a need to watch the testee weeing into a bottle.

And y should folk in trusted positions not be tested, especially as life or limb could be at stake..

The original suggestion was for every working person to be tested, from Tesco shelf-stackers, to school cleaners and librarians. Regular ( as in more than once a year ), random ( as in no advance warning ) drug testing of such a large number of people would be enormously expensive.