And if you do go down to get tested, what constitutes a failed test? Are there established limits? And, if so, does being below said limit but still guilty of having measureable traces leave me liable for a charge of 'being high at some stage recently'?
Enquiring minds want to.........what were we talking about again?
As far as I can tell from the amendment, the test is simply whether it impairs the ability to drive (Section 11A.)
Persons may not drive or attempt to drive while impaired and their blood contains evidence of use of controlled drug or prescription medicine
A person may not drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle while—
(a) impaired; and
(b) that person's blood contains evidence of the use of—
(i) a controlled drug; or
(ii) any prescription medicine.
But Section 58 indicates that actually any indication at all of a controlled substance in your blood test is an offence in itself:
(1) A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road—
(a) while under the influence of drink or a drug, or both, to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle; or
(b) if the person’s blood, as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken under section 73, contains evidence of the use of a controlled drug specified in Schedule 1 (except thalidomide) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
(1A) To avoid doubt, subsection (1)(b) does not limit subsection (1)(a).
The key here is that a blood test cannot be demanded unless "impairment" is established, which is done via a "compulsory impairment test" (Section 71) performed by the police officer, or in the case of an accident causing injury or death (Section 62). So there needs to be reasonable grounds for a blood test to be demanded, but once this occurs any amount of a controlled substance detected is an offence.
On that note, could someone tell Phil Goff that dog-whsitling racist populism at Grey Power meetings doesn't even work for Winston Peters any more?
Since when has telling a politician that something doesn't work been effective at stopping them from doing it anyway?
Besides, Phil appears to be on the political equivalent of a visionquest, hoping to prove his manhood and independence from his elders by locking himself in small smoky spaces and attempting to induce prophecy-laden hallucinations. Just wait till he gets to the bit about the pink elephants who want New Zealand to take up compulsory military service.
Worse than that, "paycheck" is often a literal, not a metaphorical staetement in the US, meaning that companies can dick people around by ensuring they get their pay too late on Friday to bank it, leaving the money in the company's accounts for an extra couple of interest-bearing days. It's almost unbelievably antiquated.
The number one "guaranteed to start a flamewar" topic on many American-majority forums is tipping for waiters. "Minimum wage" laws, such as they are (or aren't as the case may be) usually have special allowances for tips received in service industries in many states, such as allowing an employer to count "predicted average tips" as part of a waitperson's wage-so if you are required by law to pay someone (say) eight USD p/h, but you claim they'll get on average 6.5 USD per hour in tips, you only have to pay them 1.5 USD an hour, and the need to work their asses off for the tips that will ensure they get paid what they should (sometimes the employer will have to make up the difference, but this process usually gets dragged out to the point where it's not reliable when you need to pay your rent.)
It's one of the main reasons tipping is such a huge emotional trigger for many in the US-it's effectively a voluntary subsidy to prop up someone's salary.
You stop too soon, Craig. There's no evidence he wasn't involved with the Permian extinctions, after all, and I personally find that deeply suspicious.
To quote Peggy Noonan, it would be irresponsible not to speculate.
I am startled by how many people on my Twitter feed (and the blogs I read) have been passing that Muppet video around.
Slightly off track.
The appropriately named 'Your Telecom' service from Telecom has been offline for a week.
Security breaches ?
I'd be highly surprised if it was anything like that, from what I understand it's heavily integrated with other services which are still up and running, and there's no way to get "free money" (or free services for that matter) from it.
Much more likely to be an issue with an upgrade or change to the backend of the service that had to be rolled back, resulting in the shutdown until they could get things fixed. It wouldn't be a priority at this time of year, unfortunately.
I have often wondered about the security of credit cards. How easy would it be to place a small transaction on all the card numbers that, say, a waiter or checkout worker have collected over the years. When you charge to a card you have the option of stating what you want to appear on their statement, how hard is it to write "Account Charge" or "Card Management fee" ?.
If the charge is less than $5 most people would dismiss it as just another credit card company "charge" and do nothing about it.
Most credit card companies proactively monitor for this sort of thing and suspend your card until you say it's OK to proceed.
The general pattern for Internet-based credit card fraud is that you'll get a couple of small (1-2 USD) transactions on your card to "test the waters", then a much larger transaction as the fraudster tries to withdraw the money as cash. Banks have gotten better at jumping on those first small transactions.
I've had my credit card suspended twice while this was investigated (though as far as I know my card's currently active.) The first time, my details had been stolen, but the second time I was signing up to an online gaming service which used a method of charging two small random amounts then having you report those amounts back from your statement to verify that you actually owned the card.
Andre - not every non-celebrity is a bus driver. You would be surprised how many employers operating in a professional capacity would have it written into an employment contract that if you were to break the law in such a manner as the case in question that you would be dismissed.
You do the crime, you do the time.
To be fair, you were the one that used a bus driver as an example. I took it and ran with it to show that there are predictably different results for publishing various kinds of information for different types of profession, and that's something that we want judges to take into account. If someone is likely to lose their job as the result of publication of their offence, then the sentencing judge needs to take that into account, and name suppression (or discharge without conviction) may well be appropriate.
If we are instead going to talk about the more general issue of employment contracts that have clauses allowing dismissal for questionable private conduct, that's something else again. That stops being an issue about publicity surrounding an offence and starts being about the offence itself and the contractual obligations of the person committing the offence.
But not a celebrity? Why not? Why should they be treated differently to someone who did the same thing who was, say, a bus driver?
If a bus driver is convicted of a minor offence, his passengers aren't going to connect a three line story in the court pages with the guy driving their bus, so he isn't going to be unfairly impacted by its publication. Most of the embarrassment he faces will be confined to his social circle. His private misdeeds are effectively cordoned off from his public employment.
A celebrity's social circle is, on the other hand, defined as anyone who knows who they are. Most celebrities actually make money from being known by a wide number of people-that's how they get people to consume their art and come to their shows. The distinction between what they do in private and what their job is vanishes-so publication of a minor offence is going to have a significant impact on their ability to do their job, and potentially impact their future earnings in a major way.
The two situations just aren't comparable, any more than it would be comparable to start publishing the names of children who go through the youth court just because we do so for adults. Context matters in a fundamental way.
Besides, a bus driver won't make front page news for things that a celebrity will.
Oh lord. Now the Herald has thrown it to Your Views and vox pops.
I can't wait for them to start soliciting jokes about it on Sideswipe.