What you have, or NZ has is a list of what is called prohibited substances.
All prohitied substances are categorised together within the rule.
It is a breach of the prohibited substance rule that the JCA panel has to rule on. It is not a rule that specifys a particular drug.
There are other rules which deal with specific drugs along with administering etc. They are more specific, require greater proof and naturally carry much greater penalties.
Put it this way....A judge making a decision on a charge of drink driving. The charge is a breach of the transport laws.The law specifies exceeding a figure of concentration of alcohol in the blood or breath. It's not relevant to the judge in determing guilt whether the substance is scotch, VB tooheys or whatever. Conviction and penalty is set by how much rather than what brand.
The JCA don't determine the charge they determine innocence or guilt to whatever charge is placed before them.
e The fact that you guys, for whatever reason, treat all positives the same and apparently regardless of the substance, is nothing short of absurd btw.
Passing the buck doesn't make it right. In taking that approach, both HRNZ and yourselves are wrong, regardless.[/QUOTE]