Does drug prohibition put the police in danger and harm the public? [Archive]

scissorhands

17th July 2010, 17:00

A complex and emotional topic for sure.

Quote from Albert Einstein:
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."

Okay so this was coined regarding 1930's alcohol prohibition, think Chicago, tommy guns and crooked cops.

We all know from Reefer Madness that cannabis causes Mexicans and Negroes to rape white women...yeah right. So as that propaganda gives cannabis a bad name, as it also does for Mexicans and African Americans. So its obviously wrong and blatantly racist.

I'm sure everyone has heard the comment 'just give them the drugs, spend policing money on drug health policy and treatment, and they will stop stealing from us'

Personally I think Len Snee would still be with us and the 2 shot cops in CH CH (and the dog Gage) wouldnt have been in danger from drug crazed losers.

Freeing up resouces

Theft to purchase drugs would be massively reduced

Cops removed from the firing line when dealing with public of the mind that drug policy is wrong (many many citizens worldwide hold this view, not just drug users)

Health issue rather that legal issue, treatment improves for drug dependency... usually born of abuse at home (Hi Millie)

Kids have food in the fridge, family financial stresses decrease, as drugs now cost next to nothing.

Harmony within the community increase

Drug barrens and warlords stop buying police and running arms to protect drug profiteering interests

Maybe this is unpopular, but I dont think I'm wrong, and I'm no Albert Einstein. Link to some other of his saying here: http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/albert+einstein

Was wondering what others think.

Albert Einstein quotes:
Today's problems cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them.
Albert Einstein quotes:
Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.
Albert Einstein quotes:
Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.
Albert Einstein quotes:
The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.............

Edbear

17th July 2010, 17:59

Ummm, no. Prohibition was a different situation and your post shows a rather naive understanding of drugs and their effects.

Certainly education is the key, as with smoking and alcohol, but there are no safe drugs and cannabis is one of the most misunderstood and lied about drugs of all. P is a very real threat to society and needs to be completely eliminated. Don't be fooled, do your own research on drugs.

For what it's worth, I personally view alcohol as a drug even though I do drink. I also won't drink enough that I lose my senses as I want to be in control of myself at all times, but that's my personal choice of course. If anyone wants to drink themselves into a stupor that's their business but at the same time they should be held responsible for the medical and Police attention. So, of course should drug users.

slowpoke

17th July 2010, 18:00

You sir are absolutely right.........

..........you most definitely are not Albert Einstein.

The good news is Charles Darwin would have loved to have a chat with your good self.

HQfiend

17th July 2010, 18:06

Decriminalise cannabis possession under a certain amount e.g. 50gms, possession above = jail time. Growing for personal consumption e.g. max. of 3 plants, over deemed to be supplier = jail time. Allow state taxed and sanctioned farms to cultivate and sell through normal 18+ avenues like liquor and tobacco with sales tax and health warnings etc. If you are found stoned in public place/driving/operating machinery/whatever then jail time. Similar structure as sale of tobacco and liquor.
Government can make a shed load of tax money and control proliferation. Social policy/conscience can dictate acceptable drug behaviour within the community, same as with drink driving etc.
Basically treat people as "your a big person now so behave like it, these are the boundaries we will place around this behaviour and if you cross them there will be serious consequences. Not the slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket, bleeding heart liberal ones either!"

If the perception that consumption of cannabis is something illegal, is removed then perhaps the youth will find something else that is exciting to go and do, rather than frying their brains and screwing up their prospects for a future productive life, as it has been scientifically proven that cannabis has a detrimental effect on the still developing teenage brain, which is not reversible.

freedom-wedge

17th July 2010, 18:12

freedom-wedge

17th July 2010, 18:16

freedom-wedge

17th July 2010, 18:18

slofox

17th July 2010, 18:24

There is no doubt that prohibition of anything creates a huge black market for that thing - especially something that lots of people want. And that means that lots of profit is made by those who deal in that black market.

BUT. I am not sure the cure is to remove all constraints. Judging by the way we in NZ abuse alcohol, I doubt we would have enough self-restraint to stay out of the cactus with other drugs.

Frankly, I dunno what the hell we should do.

Edbear

17th July 2010, 18:30

P is a real threat to this country and others and must be stopped, canabis and the lies, well there are two side to this issue, whos been telling the porkies and for what reason.

That's why I recommend doing one's own independent research on it as I have.

scissorhands

17th July 2010, 18:32

as i said emotive topic...

Arming Police Means More Drug War Casulties, says NORML
Friday, 16 July 2010, 1:21 pm

NORML President Phil Saxby today warned that arming all frontline police could spell more drug related violence and propel New Zealand further and deeper into the "war on drugs".

"I am very concerned by the level of ‘fighting talk’ displayed by the Police at this moment and do not want to see armed officers going into every house they come across that smells of cannabis."

Phil Saxby pointed out that official figures showed 15% of adult Kiwis use cannabis every year. "That is over 400,000 * New Zealanders put at risk and would only mean disaster for New Zealand," he said. "The Police Association has already warned that this move would actually mean more people getting shot."

"In the so-called ‘war on drugs’, some – perhaps most – of those people could be young. Someone’s teenage son or daughter is growing some cannabis for themselves in their flat when the police come knocking about something unrelated, smell drugs and come in with weapons."

"Statistically, 18 – 25 year olds are the most likely users of illegal drugs, which means as a group they are most at-risk of being caught up in any violent outcome associated with drug use."

"It might be someone’s 15 year-old who happens to be at the local tinny-shop when a raid goes down, guns drawn. This is not the New Zealand anyone wants to see."

"In the United States, warrant less searches by armed police regularly end in the suspect's fatality, often when no drugs are actually found."

"NORML has deep compassion for the shot officers and their slain dog but arming police is not the answer. Ending the criminalisation of all drugs – cannabis most urgently of all – is."

"Decriminalisation is just a beginning", says Phil Saxby. "We should be aiming at a regulated, taxable market for all low-risk drugs."

"Growing cannabis is not a violent crime but arming oneself with a gun and then using it to protect an illegal and highly valuable crop is. By regulating the supply of cannabis, we will reduce the number of situations when police will need to use guns."

slowpoke

17th July 2010, 18:42

Albert Einstein quotes:
Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.

Ok, ok, serious response this time.

Drug fucked people don't make for good employees so it doesn't matter how cheap or plentiful you make drugs they won't be able to hold down a job and afford them. So your vision of a harmonious community is a not one I share

An abundance of drugs will make for a huge burden on the health/psychological/counselling systems: drugs are not exactly kind to folks' mental or physical wellbeing, and I have yet to hear of a family united by drugs despite drugs being a game the whole family can play.

Basically i don't think you could be further from the truth: in good "consience" (per Einstein) i can't agree that more drug fucked parents, more drugs in schools, more drug affected pregnancies, more drug fuelled crime, more drug related road crashes, more dysfunctaional people/families etc etc etc is a good thing.

What happened to a couple of blokes and their working companion who went off to work just as your or I do is terrible, but it's an inherent risk associated with their job, they are after all part of the Armed Services. You just hope that they are given enough training, resources and back up to perform their job in as safe a manner as possible.

It all comes back to that old saying: "Ships are safe in the harbour but that's not what ships are for."

Edit: it's all very well to say "We don't know how best to handle this" but this one of those fire fighting type scenarios where doing almost anything is better than nothing.

Edbear

17th July 2010, 18:45

golfmade

17th July 2010, 18:50

Majority of drugs including marijuana is HIGHLY illegal here and carries very stiff penalties. That said I'm not sure what kind of education methods are in place to inform people the effects of drug use. I have seen more news stories recently about the increased use of Meth here, which worries me as not only is the consumption dangerous but the production as well.

SMOKEU

17th July 2010, 18:52

When was the last time any of you heard of someone blazing up a mad as J and then going on a rampage with a gun? The drug policy in the Netherlands seems to work quite well.

scissorhands

17th July 2010, 19:06

Ok, ok, serious response this time.

Drug fucked people don't make for good employees so it doesn't matter how cheap or plentiful you make drugs they won't be able to hold down a job and afford them. So your vision of a harmonious community is a not one I share

An abundance of drugs will make for a huge burden on the health/psychological/counselling systems: drugs are not exactly kind to folks' mental or physical well being, and I have yet to hear of a family united by drugs despite drugs being a game the whole family can play.

Basically i don't think you could be further from the truth: in good "consience" (per Einstein) i can't agree that more drug fucked parents, more drugs in schools, more drug affected pregnancies, more drug fuelled crime, more drug related road crashes, more dysfunctaional people/families etc etc etc is a good thing.

What happened to a couple of blokes and their working companion who went off to work just as your or I do is terrible, but it's an inherent risk associated with their job, they are after all part of the Armed Services. You just hope that they are given enough training, resources and back up to perform their job in as safe a manner as possible.

It all comes back to that old saying: "Ships are safe in the harbour but that's not what ships are for."

Edit: it's all very well to say "We don't know how best to handle this" but this one of those fire fighting type scenarios where doing almost anything is better than nothing.

emotive emotive lol

Only 6% of Dutch now use Cannabis. It use has gone down after decriminalisation, not up as you postulate incorrectly. Much of the above rhetoric has no basis in fact. Sorry, but Albert Einstein is right and followers of cult religious groups are wrong...

High dose and heavy consumption causing health, safety and social problems are not authentic to any substance but the compulsive obsessive tendencies of the user. As with dogs that scratch themselves raw, battery chickens that peck their cage mates....once their needs are meet they become happy animals, we can too....

YellowDog

17th July 2010, 19:08

Well it has alreday been said that education is indeed the answer.

Empowering the young to make better choices and to understand the consequenses associated with some specific actions is critical to all our futures.

If kids know what they are doing is wrong, then at least they have a chance with their futures.

I have mates who are daily canabis users for recreational/relaxation purposes. Their fine and not harming anyone.

I have other friends whom I avoid because they have undergone an unpleasant personality transformation IMO due to their over intoxication of canabis.

I can say the same about other friends with alcohol.

The fact is that many are affected in different ways, which makes it very difficult to pass laws that all can relate to or understand.

"why should I not be allowed to drink a beer in public just because some some can't handle their alcohol and don't know when to stop drinking?"

I don't have all of the answers however IMO many of such problems begin at home.

blackdog

17th July 2010, 19:08

scissorhands

17th July 2010, 19:12

The problem with this reasoning is that it is not the teenagers doing the shooting, it is the older one's in their 30's+ who are heavily armed and shooting the cops.

Recent news showed the number of teenagers smoking has dropped markedly, and this surely is due to education, can anyone find figures for drug use?

Pot is so 90's, most of my surfing buddies that grew up around pot have kids which cant be bothered with it. Most are fairly good parents though (and they are still stoners sometimes!!)

We can argue the harm used by consumption of drugs and alcohol forever.

The question I put here after the CH Ch shooting this week is, 'Are the police and public put in danger by prohibition?'

scumdog

17th July 2010, 19:17

BUT. I am not sure the cure is to remove all constraints. Judging by the way we in NZ abuse alcohol, I doubt we would have enough self-restraint to stay out of the cactus with other drugs.
.

Could not agree with that statement more, very very true!!

blackdog

17th July 2010, 19:27

Could not agree with that statement more, very very true!!

I believe alcohol is the more insidious drug of the two by far.

Removing all constraints may not be the answer, but by softening some cannibis restrictions I sincerely think that the impact alcohol has on society can be measurably reduced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwDRBm-qbQI

slowpoke

17th July 2010, 20:23

emotive emotive lol

Only 6% of Dutch now use Cannabis. It use has gone down after decriminalisation, not up as you postulate incorrectly. Much of the above rhetoric has no basis in fact. Sorry, but Albert Einstein is right and followers of cult religious groups are wrong...

High dose and heavy consumption causing health, safety and social problems are not authentic to any substance but the compulsive obsessive tendencies of the user. As with dogs that scratch themselves raw, battery chickens that peck their cage mates....once their needs are meet they become happy animals, we can too....

So you think Dutch culture and people are the same as New Zealand's? I don't think you'll find many people agree with that lil' gem. I'm not even gonna go into the stats that can be made to read virtually anything, especially with a topic like drug use that many people would be reluctant to admit to.

And you think that heroin, cocaine, opium, P, tobacco, alcohol etc etc "addiction" is all in the users head? There's nothing related to the actual substance that is addictive? Good luck making that one fly with health professionals. Even cigarette companies have admitted using additives that increase the addictive properties of it's product, so I'm afraid it is very much a substance issue, and not just in the head of the user.

You are basically preaching self restraint with substances that by their very nature remove restraint. Doesn't sound too smart to me but I'm just an Amish farmer so what would I know............

golfmade

17th July 2010, 20:44

Why would you be concerned? You ride like you are drug-fucked anyway.

Troll elsewhere.

blackdog

17th July 2010, 20:55

Troll elsewhere.

Merely an observation. I put your comments into context with what I already know about you.

scissorhands

17th July 2010, 21:10

So you think Dutch culture and people are the same as New Zealand's? I don't think you'll find many people agree with that lil' gem. I'm not even gonna go into the stats that can be made to read virtually anything, especially with a topic like drug use that many people would be reluctant to admit to.

And you think that heroin, cocaine, opium, P, tobacco, alcohol etc etc "addiction" is all in the users head? There's nothing related to the actual substance that is addictive? Good luck making that one fly with health professionals. Even cigarette companies have admitted using additives that increase the addictive properties of it's product, so I'm afraid it is very much a substance issue, and not just in the head of the user.

You are basically preaching self restraint with substances that by their very nature remove restraint. Doesn't sound too smart to me but I'm just an Amish farmer so what would I know............

I agree in principal but dont see the situation as fixed.

When people think addiction, obesity seldom comes to mind but going by the amount of lardarse riders and Joe Q's out there, I would personally put it ahead of tobacco and alcohol, then P then cannabis.

True, addiction is complicated, every astrological aries/rooster or virgo/tiger I have known, has had addiction problems. Their star given qualities make them more prone to addiction (duck for cover)

I still think if we were happy free range animals instead of conditioned cage kept production units, our level of addictive behaviours would reduce markedly. There is no reason that with education that we cannot become like the Dutch in sophistication. They have many Africans Turks etc who sound and think like any other Dutchman

Can anyone say yes or no as to whether prohibition puts police and the general public at risk? RIP Len Snee...

piston broke

17th July 2010, 21:31

Paul in NZ

18th July 2010, 00:05

Thats odd - I have a friend thats a Dutch narcotics squad member... They have a view of dutch society that is not quite as generous.... I think we should outlaw alcohol - especially Vodka... (groan)

Dadpole

18th July 2010, 00:52

prohibition only causes more problems,black market e.t.c.
i think decriminalise all drugs,but,
only chemists allowed to supply,only with a script from your doc.
and 18+yrs.
harsh sentences for under age and black market sellers.
education is the key

Then the Govt says it is better handled by the free market. McDonalds could branch out into a very profitable area indeed.

scissorhands

18th July 2010, 01:18

Googled alcohol prohibtion and wowsers in NZ and first hit was this little gem, lol

There have always been the wowsers and the boozers. John de Bueger looks at alcohol abuse in New Zealand.

The School-College rugby match between Christchurch Boys' High School and Christ's College has long been a highlight of the Christchurch winter season.

During my school days, the crowd was swollen by hundreds of old boys from both schools, along with a few posers at this important milestone on the social calendar for Canterbury's elite.

Imagine one's surprise to learn that this year both headmasters have decreed that nobody under 22 will be admitted - in an effort to curb the drunken mayhem that has marred recent encounters.

This is just a further minor example of the misuse of alcohol by a minority impacting on what was traditionally a boisterous, good-natured affair, and flags a pressing need for reform of our liquor laws.

The Law Commission's recent report was thus timely, and given the public interest, the media had a field-day trying to double-guess both the recommendations - and what the Cabinet will eventually sign off on.

On Afternoons with Jim Mora, a panelist made the salient point that the anti-booze brigade must have orchestrated their networking.

The airways were saturated with their slant: Monday the wowsers, Tuesday the police, Wednesday a doctor from A& E, Thursday Alac, etc, - but then, home-grown prohibitionists have long been numerous, vocal and media-savvy.

Given our hard-drinking colonial legacy, public opinion has wavered ever since between two permanently entrenched extremes: the boozers and the wowsers.

Only the votes of overseas servicemen prevented the temperance movement forcing United States-style prohibition on this country at the end of the World War 1 - with all the opportunities that offered for organised crime.

Given the damage caused by the misuse of booze, and particularly, highly visible teenage binge-drinking, there is widespread acceptance that the system needs tweaking.

The grab-bag of measures available to this end include increased excise duty, statutory minimum prices, a raised drinking age, restricted opening hours, hammering alco-pops, curtailing advertising, and a drastic cut in the number of liquor outlets.

Most of the population can enjoy a social drink without making a nuisance, and any attempt to change deeply ingrained cultural attitudes because of loutish teenage behaviour is doomed.

Prohibition does not work, has never worked, and can be confidently predicted to fail in the future.

No amount of propaganda will ever convince the law-abiding majority that there is anything wrong with having a beer when you get home followed by a couple of glasses of wine over dinner.

Unpalatable as fundamental home-truths might be to wowsers, the fact remains that mankind seems hard-wire programmed to befuddle the brain as an escape from everyday reality - and the worse real or imagined horrors are, then the harder the drugs that get used.

It is a market that has proved impossible to stamp out.

Making booze illegal just drives it underground, and banning it for religious reasons results in hordes of Muslims heading for Dubai or Europe.

When subjects like ameliorating teenage excess arise, one invariably reflects back on one's own youth - and I'm afraid few of us will be bereft of distant memories that cannot be recalled with pride.

When my generation was at university, the minimum drinking age was 21 - and the 6 o'clock swill reigned supreme.

Out of sheer practicality, most undergraduates were obliged to break the law twice - by consuming not inconsiderable quantities of Speight's, both under age and after hours.

This behaviour met with little public opprobrium, because there has long been widespread societal acceptance that carousing was normal (under-21) student behaviour.

In Hamlet, 400 years ago, Shakespeare has a university student saying, "We will teach you to drink deep ere you depart . . ."

Most us, reflecting on past misdemeanours, eventually grew out of what were mainly youthful high jinks - and furthermore, confidently expect the same process to repeat itself in today's young.

So while we can flag away raising the drinking age above 19, the same logic does not apply to the ridiculous 24-hour availability of booze, and particularly in lower socioeconomic areas.

Booze problems only spiralled out of control when alco-pops were targeted at underage drinkers, supermarkets (and superettes) started selling the stuff (with discounts), and liquor outlets were allowed to proliferate.

These are the three areas where the clock needs turning back.

scissorhands

18th July 2010, 01:22

Next google hit

The Law Commission proposals on alcohol

The Government is releasing a 500 page report next Tuesday from the Law Commission which makes scores of recommendations of changes to alcohol laws and policy.

The report was commissioned by the former Labour Government, and the primary author is former Labour Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer – who is also the Law Commission President.

Details of the report have leaked out, and I can exclusively reveal some of these. They represent a nanny state mindset which I doubt even the last Government would have ever gone along with. It stops short of prohibition and six o’clock closing, but represents a huge step backwards. Fundamentally the report fails to propose measures that target the minority of people who cause problems of crime and violence when under the influence of alcohol, and instead it has gone for a one size fits all approach which punishes millions of responsible drinkers, and especially 130,000 18 and 19 year olds.

I understand the Palmer Report proposes:

1. A massive 50% increase in the excise tax on alcohol. This would result in an extra $500 million of revenue to the Crown at the expense of everyone who drinks.
2. Banning the sale of liquor at off licenses after 10 pm. So if you pop into New World at 10.30 pm to do your shopping (which I often do), you won’t be able to buy a bottle of wine.
3. Forcing bars and nightclubs to refuse to allow people to enter after 2 am.
4. A nationwide closing time for all outlets, probably at 4 am.
5. An increase in the purchase age for alcohol from 18 to 20, criminalising 130,000 18 and 19 year olds if they buy alcohol.

As I said, this is nanny state unleashed. What is most disappointing is the failure to come up with measures that might actually target those causing the problems such as a drinking age (instead of a purchase age), increased penalties for alcohol related crime, and a one size fit all approach.

I would not necessarily be against allowing local communities through local Government able to (for example) set a closing time for their local neighbourhood. But a nationwide closing time that treats Ponsonby and Courtney Place as the same as (say) Wainuiomata is a bad thing.

I am sure there are some useful recommendations in the Palmer Report, but its main recommendations represent the worst excesses of nanny state and punishes all New Zealanders, rather than targeting problem drinkers and the associated violence and crime they cause.

I hope the Government, and in fact all parties in Parliament, reject any wholesale adoption of the report’s recommendations.

Milts

18th July 2010, 01:32

I have absolutely no opinion on this issue. However...213110

mashman

18th July 2010, 09:50

I have absolutely no opinion on this issue. However...213110

So it makes financial sense to decriminalise it in the US... you'd generate nearly 800 billion in tax revenues and save over 6 trillion on incarceration costs... FUCK ME... that'd be 1.5 trillion extra for education/infrastructure/healthcare/real policing etc... here?

I'm with the decriminalisation lobby... the only downside, that I can see, is smoking whilst at work/driving (some already take that risk with booze) etc... Revenue will be up, officers will be getting shot for something entirely different and perhaps the "crims" will be happier to have fun with their new cannabis benefit, than create nuisance?

mashman

18th July 2010, 09:57

and on a personal note... i'd much rather have a bunch of stoned morons roving the streets, than pissed up teens oblivious to your humanity as they kick your head in for no reason than, they're shitfaced and didn't like the look of you... old people, cops, women, babies, teachers and the beat goes on... free it up, soooo many pointless rules :)

Hinny

18th July 2010, 11:03

There is no doubt that prohibition of anything creates a huge black market for that thing
Some like Edbear refute the idea that prohibiting (making illegal) the use of certain substances is 'Prohibition'.

That's why I recommend doing one's own independent research on it as I have.
You need to do considerably more research given your views and comments.
Hypocritical exhibition of the abhorrent failing 'Arrogant ignorance'.

Recent news showed the number of teenagers smoking has dropped markedly, and this surely is due to education.
There is no logic in that statement. .... and stop calling me Shirley.

When was the last time any of you heard of someone blazing up a mad as J and then going on a rampage with a gun?
Harry Anslinger got Cannabis made illegal in the US by telling tales of pot users turning into axe-wielding homicidal maniacs. The Congress bought the story and movies like 'Reefer Madness' sold the lies to the general public.

The war on drugs has resulted in the worldwide proliferation in drug use. This is indisputable.

Education has resulted in increased drug use.
How many on this forum first learned about drugs from 'Drug educators' at schools. Reformed users etc.
There was no problem with glue sniffing in Ak. until the Herald ran articles about glue sniffing complete with articles on how to use it.
According to Graeme Perry, the former head of the drug squad in Ak., there was no Heroin problem until they said there was one. Education, through the media, created a problem.
You tell lies about one drug and all drug education goes the same way. Tales of harm get ignored.

Edbear

18th July 2010, 11:15

Some like Edbear refute the idea that prohibiting (making illegal) the use of certain substances is 'Prohibition'.

You need to do considerably more research given your views and comments.
Hypocritical exhibition of the abhorrent failing 'Arrogant ignorance'.

There is no logic in that statement. .... and stop calling me Shirley.

Harry Anslinger got Cannabis made illegal in the US by telling tales of pot users turning into axe-wielding homicidal maniacs. The Congress bought the story and movies like 'Reefer Madness' sold the lies to the general public.

The war on drugs has resulted in the worldwide proliferation in drug use. This is indisputable.

Education has resulted in increased drug use.
How many on this forum first learned about drugs from 'Drug educators' at schools. Reformed users etc.
There was no problem with glue sniffing in Ak. until the Herald ran articles about glue sniffing complete with articles on how to use it.
According to Graeme Perry, the former head of the drug squad in Ak., there was no Heroin problem until they said there was one. Education, through the media, created a problem.
You tell lies about one drug and all drug education goes the same way. Tales of harm get ignored.

You must be on some pretty effective "medication" yourself. Your post is so far out it's off the planet. Spoken like a died-in-the-wool drug user out of touch with reality and with no idea who I am and what study I have done on the subject.

Edbear

18th July 2010, 11:19

The war on drugs has resulted in the worldwide proliferation in drug use. This is indisputable.

Education has resulted in increased drug use.
.

Yup, that's why the world has such a huge alcohol problem as well, right...? And the even bigger problem of prescription drug addiction too...

It's all a big conspiracy to interfere with your "right" to take drugs which are harmless...

slowpoke

18th July 2010, 11:34

Googled alcohol prohibtion and wowsers in NZ and first hit was this little gem, lol

blah blah de blah

Next google hit

blah blah blah

What's the point of quoting nameless, sourceless, unsubstantiated opinion pieces, trawled off the net? Oops, I forgot the "Truth" app you use when Googling on your I-phone....my bad.

mashman

18th July 2010, 11:43

What's the point of quoting nameless, sourceless, unsubstantiated opinion pieces, trawled off the net? Oops, I forgot the "Truth" app you use when Googling on your I-phone....my bad.

Dr Richard Melamede PHD former Chairman of the Biology Department of Colorado University says: :shifty:

http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/200906231093/green/eco-news/how-cannabis-science-may-save-10000-uk-prostate-cancer-sufferers-a-year.html

SMOKEU

18th July 2010, 11:53

Edbear

18th July 2010, 12:02

Dr Richard Melamede PHD former Chairman of the Biology Department of Colorado University says: :shifty:

http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/200906231093/green/eco-news/how-cannabis-science-may-save-10000-uk-prostate-cancer-sufferers-a-year.html

There has been a lot of research done on the medicinal properties of many drugs, including Cannabis and I have long been of the opinion that the drug had benefits in medicine that should be developed.

However the misuse of many substances for "pleasure" goes on and will go on by those who are short-sighted and ignorant, and if they can't get what they want they'll look for a substitute to give them their so-called "high". Witness the development of these legal party drugs as people try to find ways to get blotto so they can have a "good time".

Edbear

18th July 2010, 12:08

I don't want to get into a discussion as to whether or not pot kills your brain cells and makes you stupid, but eating excessive amounts of food kills people and costs the health system millions of $ every year. People can die from an OD of panadol, even caffeine pills. There is no risk of an OD on weed, and prohibition has not been proven to increase the safety of the general population, or the users.

There's no point in talking about all the different ways people can kill or damage themselves, it's only a smokescreen to justify using. The simple answer is to take care of your health in all areas as much as is within your control to do so. Don't overeat, overdrink, overdose or engage in activities you're not capable of handling.

And as I always encourage people to do their own research and study, I am constantly amazed at the reluctance of people to find out facts, lest it spoil their personal preferences...

Hinny

18th July 2010, 12:54

You must be on some pretty effective "medication" yourself. Your post is so far out it's off the planet. Spoken like a died-in-the-wool drug user out of touch with reality and with no idea who I am and what study I have done on the subject.

I have an analysed life/mind and do not need or use medication.
Perhaps you could elucidate. Which parts of my post are 'out'?
I have a clear idea of what study you have done on the subject given your posts.
A succinct summary could be 'insufficient'.

DMNTD

18th July 2010, 13:32

Edbear

18th July 2010, 13:43

Some like Edbear refute the idea that prohibiting (making illegal) the use of certain substances is 'Prohibition'.

Where did I say that?

You need to do considerably more research given your views and comments.
Hypocritical exhibition of the abhorrent failing 'Arrogant ignorance'.

I have done extensive research and my views reflect the studies done on the subject. Medical studies have time and again proven the detrimental effects of Cannabis use on the human brain and nervoius system and if you did some research yourself, you would find the same.

There is no logic in that statement. .... and stop calling me Shirley.

Don't you watch the news?

Harry Anslinger got Cannabis made illegal in the US by telling tales of pot users turning into axe-wielding homicidal maniacs. The Congress bought the story and movies like 'Reefer Madness' sold the lies to the general public.

Since his time there have been extensive and indeed ongoing studies into the effects of cannabis on the body and mind. You are out of date and his stance has little to do with today's laws which have been hotly debated and extensively researched. If Cannabis was harmless it would not be illegal.

The war on drugs has resulted in the worldwide proliferation in drug use. This is indisputable.

Education has resulted in increased drug use.

I have addressed this in another post.

How many on this forum first learned about drugs from 'Drug educators' at schools. Reformed users etc.
There was no problem with glue sniffing in Ak. until the Herald ran articles about glue sniffing complete with articles on how to use it.
According to Graeme Perry, the former head of the drug squad in Ak., there was no Heroin problem until they said there was one. Education, through the media, created a problem.
You tell lies about one drug and all drug education goes the same way. Tales of harm get ignored.

Rubbish, this is typical conspiracy theory crap. Anyone can do their own independent study and publicise the results.

Edbear

18th July 2010, 13:47

Sounds a lot like motorcycling to me.

A bit like the ACC bollix, there is always a way to view things in both a positive a negative light (broad strokes).

Motorcycling cannot be compared to alcohol and drug use beyond the endorphine factor. Alcohol and drugs are invariably detrimental to one's physical and cognitive abilities, riding a bike isn't. Why do you think even so many precription drugs warn against driving while taking them?

DMNTD

18th July 2010, 14:05

Motorcycling cannot be compared to alcohol and drug use beyond the endorphin factor. Alcohol and drugs are invariably detrimental to one's physical and cognitive abilities, riding a bike isn't. Why do you think even so many prescription drugs warn against driving while taking them?

Good...because that is all I meant.

Re prescription drugs...unfortunately I've had a lot more experience than most with those.
I am still supposed to be on a gratuitous amount of HEAVY painkillers yet choose not to be due to the side effects.
Should I take Valium or Imovane to sleep tonight?
Nah...think I'll stick to a cone

Edbear

18th July 2010, 14:13

Good...because that is all I meant.

Re prescription drugs...unfortunately I've had a lot more experience than most with those.
I am still supposed to be on a gratuitous amount of HEAVY painkillers yet choose not to be due to the side effects.
Should I take Valium or Imovane to sleep tonight?
Nah...think I'll stick to a cone

I was heavily addicted to prescription painkillers and it was a living hell! Getting off them was a nightmare and has left me wary of taking drugs ever since.

I was given sleeping pills once and hated them so stopped taking them and have never used them since! I am on painkillers now for my back, but only Panadol and 1 x twice daily Tramadol which I'm tolerating well. I'm hopeful of stopping the Tramadol this week and making do with just the Panadol.

DMNTD

18th July 2010, 14:18

I was heavily addicted to prescription painkillers and it was a living hell! Getting off them was a nightmare and has left me wary of taking drugs ever since.

I was given sleeping pills once and hated them so stopped taking them and have never used them since! I am on painkillers now for my back, but only Panadol and 1 x twice daily Tramadol which I'm tolerating well. I'm hopeful of stopping the Tramadol this week and making do with just the Panadol.

Heh! Good ol' Tramadol! Used to be on 12+ per day, PLUS Morphine,Synflex, ++++++++++ .
IMO....Synflex is the better prescription drug I have ever used. Didn't/doesn't muck with me in any way.

IMHO...70% of pain can be 'managed' mentally which unfortunately is extremely tiring and stressful.
A small cone at the end of the night helps release the stress.
BTW...no, pot does NOT help with physical pain, just the perception of it.

Hinny

18th July 2010, 16:59

Rubbish, this is typical conspiracy theory crap. Anyone can do their own independent study and publicise the results.
Just because you do not have knowledge of such things does not make them rubbish. That is to say your ignorance is not a defining parameter.
Each of my statements is totally valid.
Q. Where did you refute the prohibition tag for the legal status of drugs and drug use? A. Post 2.
'Ummm, no. Prohibition was a different situation...'

I have yet to see any research results that cast Cannabis use in a negative light that have not been convincingly debunked by the scientific community.
Apart from one conducted by the University of Auckland.
The brains from a dozen healthy rats were placed in a 3.2 molar solution of Hydrochloric acid for 12 minutes.
They were then placed in a blender with a tincture of Tetrahydrocannabinol
also known as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC the active ingredient in cannabis.
After blending for no more than five minutes they were rinsed in common household bleach. Examination under an electron microscope revealed definite brain damage - there is no doubt that this was from the exposure to the THC.

The really bad part about prohibition is the counter-intuitive outcomes than are undeniable. That is, prohibition leads to increased drug use. This is a self evident truth.

davereid

18th July 2010, 17:35

The really bad part about prohibition is the counter-intuitive outcomes than are undeniable. That is, prohibition leads to increased drug use. This is a self evident truth.

I don't think that is counter intuitive, it makes complete sense..

It seems entirely natural that the more we try to stop drug use, the harder and more dangerous drugs will become.

If alcohol were illegal, its unlikely I would just brew beer, it would not be worth the risk, I'd just make spirits.

Why smuggle in a container of beer (as it were) when you could smuggle in a container of ethanol. Which once watered down gives you 3 containers of vodka, each with 3 times the potential profit of the beer ?

The same must apply to the illegal drug trade.

And I think its a gimme that prohibition does not reduce demand, so
even if the police were to be able to reduce supply, the profit per unit goes up.

Its actually almost the perfect business.. you have a product people want, the government works to reduce supply for you, thus ensuring your profit margin.

Edbear

18th July 2010, 17:37

Just because you do not have knowledge of such things does not make them rubbish. That is to say your ignorance is not a defining parameter.
Each of my statements is totally valid.
Q. Where did you refute the prohibition tag for the legal status of drugs and drug use? A. Post 2.
'Ummm, no. Prohibition was a different situation...'

I have yet to see any research results that cast Cannabis use in a negative light that have not been convincingly debunked by the scientific community.
Apart from one conducted by the University of Auckland.
The brains from a dozen healthy rats were placed in a 3.2 molar solution of Hydrochloric acid for 12 minutes.
They were then placed in a blender with a tincture of Tetrahydrocannabinol
also known as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC the active ingredient in cannabis.
After blending for no more than five minutes they were rinsed in common household bleach. Examination under an electron microscope revealed definite brain damage - there is no doubt that this was from the exposure to the THC.

The really bad part about prohibition is the counter-intuitive outcomes than are undeniable. That is, prohibition leads to increased drug use. This is a self evident truth.

Sigh... The Prohibition you were referring to and that I referred to was the Prohibition everyone thinks of when that word is mentioned, ie: the US booze ban. The word "prohibition" means to prohibit something, and I never argued any different.

As for ignorance, I could flood you with research and your post is so biased and ridiculous I can't even be bothered with a response to it.

FJRider

18th July 2010, 17:52

The really bad part about prohibition is the counter-intuitive outcomes than are undeniable. That is, prohibition leads to increased drug use. This is a self evident truth.

Sooooooo .... we make it legal ... and drug use will slow down/stop ??????? :shit: :blink: :shutup:

scumdog

18th July 2010, 17:53

Sooooooo .... we make it l,egal ... and drug use will slow down/stop ??????? :shit: :blink: :shutup:

Yup, works with alcohol eh!:shifty:

davereid

18th July 2010, 18:08

Sooooooo .... we make it l,egal ... and drug use will slow down/stop ??????? :shit: :blink: :shutup:

I think the momentum for the manufacture and supply of harder and harder drugs would reduce.

For what ever reason, people seek a "buzz". Thats the "demand" part of the chain.

If that demand can be met with drugs that are (relatively) safe, the reason for the manufacture of (relatively) unsafe drugs is reduced.

There will always be those who seek the hardest, and most damaging.

But for most people, if they could get the buzz they seek legally, demand for the more damaging drugs would simply fade away.

Its my opinion that those who manufacture drugs, look to ship the most kick per unit of profit they can, without regard to the effects on the consumer.

Prohibition of drugs, without removal of demand is unlikely to do a bloody thing !

Edbear

18th July 2010, 18:15

Sooooooo .... we make it l,egal ... and drug use will slow down/stop ??????? :shit: :blink: :shutup:

Yup, works with alcohol eh!:shifty:

Some people just can't see the bleedin' obvious... :blink:

scissorhands

18th July 2010, 19:13

Some people just can't see the bleedin' obvious... :blink:

The bleeding obvious is obviously different for different people....why not listen to experts instead of emotionally charged opinions either by drug users or religion users.

Reminds me of when a kebab shop guy wanted to tell me about the one true god, then refused to serve me when i said i wasnt a believer. What was bleeding obvious to him, was a crock of shit to me....

heres a couple of expert opinions, a judge too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yd_IWvLZOQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7yKpvBQhTw

FJRider

18th July 2010, 19:20

I think the momentum for the manufacture and supply of harder and harder drugs would reduce.

For what ever reason, people seek a "buzz". Thats the "demand" part of the chain.

If that demand can be met with drugs that are (relatively) safe, the reason for the manufacture of (relatively) unsafe drugs is reduced.

There will always be those who seek the hardest, and most damaging.

But for most people, if they could get the buzz they seek legally, demand for the more damaging drugs would simply fade away.

Its my opinion that those who manufacture drugs, look to ship the most kick per unit of profit they can, without regard to the effects on the consumer.

Prohibition of drugs, without removal of demand is unlikely to do a bloody thing !

The way people get their "kicks" varies .... some get it through speed (NOT THAT DRUG) and although speed can be achieved legally ... on race tracks or closed roads/private property ... many won't.

Thus it would seem, it it not the drugs (or the speed) that they get the bigger kick out of ... but the breaking the law ... doing what they are not allowed to do.

Edbear

18th July 2010, 19:42

The bleeding obvious is obviously different for different people....why not listen to experts instead of emotionally charged opinions either by drug users or religion users.

Reminds me of when a kebab shop guy wanted to tell me about the one true god, then refused to serve me when i said i wasnt a believer. What was bleeding obvious to him, was a crock of shit to me....

heres a couple of expert opinions, a judge too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yd_IWvLZOQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7yKpvBQhTw

You know what they say about opinions... A recent post of mine acknowledged the potential medical benefits of many drugs including Cannabis and obviously Magic Mushrooms have an ingredient that could be explored medically as well.

The point you are missing, is that for most people, they take these drugs to get a high, to get senseless as do people abuse alcohol, not for medicinal purposes. As others have also opined similarly, alcohol os a legal drug and we have a major alcohol abuse problem in this and most other countries. So legal or not, abuse of drugs and alcohol will continue to be major problem world wide, and you only have to ask those on the front line, ie: Police, Paramedics and hospitals as well as social services as to the effects of substance abuse.

Even so-called expert opinion has to be backed by solid scientific evidence and there is plenty around that analyses the physical and psychological effects of drugs and alcohol. People who bleat that they should be allowed to take drugs and alcohol as they please without breaking the law are in the minority and rarely are among the leaders of the world making a positive contribution to society. Think of all the great men and women of the world who work hard for the betterment of society and mankind and how many are drug and alcohol abusers?

As I said, dugs and alcohol always impair the body's functions and mental lucidity and prolonged use only makes it worse. But you don't need to take my word for it, I'm merely telling you what the scientific and medical studies prove. You can easily verify this for yourself by doing your own research into the topic.

scissorhands

18th July 2010, 20:24

You know what they say about opinions... A recent post of mine acknowledged the potential medical benefits of many drugs including Cannabis and obviously Magic Mushrooms have an ingredient that could be explored medically as well.

The point you are missing, is that for most people, they take these drugs to get a high, to get senseless as do people abuse alcohol, not for medicinal purposes. As others have also opined similarly, alcohol os a legal drug and we have a major alcohol abuse problem in this and most other countries. So legal or not, abuse of drugs and alcohol will continue to be major problem world wide, and you only have to ask those on the front line, ie: Police, Paramedics and hospitals as well as social services as to the effects of substance abuse.

Even so-called expert opinion has to be backed by solid scientific evidence and there is plenty around that analyses the physical and psychological effects of drugs and alcohol. People who bleat that they should be allowed to take drugs and alcohol as they please without breaking the law are in the minority and rarely are among the leaders of the world making a positive contribution to society. Think of all the great men and women of the world who work hard for the betterment of society and mankind and how many are drug and alcohol abusers?

As I said, dugs and alcohol always impair the body's functions and mental lucidity and prolonged use only makes it worse. But you don't need to take my word for it, I'm merely telling you what the scientific and medical studies prove. You can easily verify this for yourself by doing your own research into the topic.

I respect your right to an opinion but strongly disagree and cant be bothered countering your points. I think your an idealist rather the a realist regarding the worlds drug problem. As much as you see dyed in the wool drug users as wrong for harming themselves, I see your view as puritanical and morose regarding ritualistic or recreational inebriation, sort the world over by all peoples of all races.... Sort of at the other end of the scale of excess,

PROHIBITION IS JUST AS WRONG

I can understand your wishing to balance a world of excess with prohibtion, but the middle balanced view is intelligent and harmony involves give and take.....

I'm here and now promoting the idea that prohibition is harmful to police and the public, and at the end of the day, we are better off without it.

Albert Einstein, Judge Gray and many/most intellectuals and scientists agree with this.

Religious people and wowsers agree with you.

I am firmly of the mind that if NZ was to decriminalise drug use, many positive things will happen to our country, including acceptance and love, rather than the habit of labelling 'users' as 'abusers'.

What about the financial cost of food abusers to our society? Its fecking huge!! I pay for that!!! And if I smoke 1 gram of weed in a week I'm a drug abuser? Its wrong!

scumdog

18th July 2010, 20:57

I can understand your wishing to balance a world of excess with prohibtion, but the middle balanced view is intelligent and harmony involves give and take.....

I'm here and now promoting the idea that prohibition is harmful to police and the public, and at the end of the day, we are better off without it.

I am firmly of the mind that if NZ was to decriminalise drug use, many positive things will happen to our country, including acceptance and love, rather than the habit of labelling 'users' as 'abusers'.

What about the financial cost of food abusers to our society? Its fecking huge!! I pay for that!!! And if I smoke 1 gram of weed in a week I'm a drug abuser? Its wrong!

Hmmm, the joys of legalising dak and similar stuff:

The 'joy' of going on a flight in a chopper piloted by a toked-out dude - full of acceptance and love too no doubt.

Or be operated on by a zoned-out surgeon equally so. :blink:

scissorhands

18th July 2010, 21:25

Hmmm, the joys of legalising dak and similar stuff:

The 'joy' of going on a flight in a chopper piloted by a toked-out dude - full of acceptance and love too no doubt.

Or be operated on by a zoned-out surgeon equally so. :blink:

Alcohol is much worse in these scenarios:yes: than someone on stimulating drugs like the ones those crusty demon guys take.

The German doctor in Bali who stitches up the surfers is usually boozing or on something from the pharmacy, but hes always a better bet than the tea total Balo doctors:shit:

So meh meh meh:2guns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEFPdNv2Ddk

Hinny

19th July 2010, 08:38

Think of all the great men and women of the world who work hard for the betterment of society and mankind and how many are drug and alcohol abusers?.

I'm thinking Roosevelt - Piss-head drug addict.
I'm thinking Churchill - Piss-head drug addict.
I'm thinking Hitler - Tea-totaler vegetarian.

I can see which path you want the world to go down.

Edbear

19th July 2010, 08:58

I'm thinking Roosevelt - Piss-head drug addict.
I'm thinking Churchill - Piss-head drug addict.
I'm thinking Hitler - Tea-totaler vegetarian.

I can see which path you want the world to go down.

I was thinking Ghandi, Mendela, Mother Theresa, Hillary...

I can see which path you want the world to go down...

scissorhands

19th July 2010, 09:06

Its a bit sad this has degenerated into a slinging match.

RIP Len Snee says it all for me. Its bleedin obvious he would still be with us today if there was no money in a crop of weed....

So much of our crime is a buy product of prohibition.....so much....the recent spate of bike theft....

Grey Lynn foodtown had its first armed hold up on Friday. If we adopt american models we will get american problems.

Get a brain morans!

mashman

19th July 2010, 09:45

However the misuse of many substances for "pleasure" goes on and will go on by those who are short-sighted and ignorant, and if they can't get what they want they'll look for a substitute to give them their so-called "high". Witness the development of these legal party drugs as people try to find ways to get blotto so they can have a "good time".

Ya see... when you say short-sighted and ignorant, I say, young and naive... the inexperienced looking for the experiences of choice... unfortunately you lose some of them to the "drug" (not necessarily just drugs), but that's a fact of life, be it booze, drugs, Diet Pepsi (yes my sister and my mates girlfriend both had hard times coming off Diet Pepsi)... As goes for everything else in life, the individual will pretty much do what they want to do... perhaps experimentation, perhaps escapism, perhaps habit, perhaps mental problem etc... the list goes on and outlawing these things only produces documented problems...

That "high" you're talking about, is personal. We all do it for our own reasons... some people read and enjoy the knowledge high :shifty:, some pray, some "do good", some do bad... and if nothing is going to change these things... then why bother trying to enforce the unenforceable?

Legalise cannabis... if nothing else, it could save lives :)...

DMNTD

19th July 2010, 09:48

Legalise cannabis... if nothing else, it could save lives :)...
I'd go decriminalise and make the possession of it outside of the new boundaries to be higher :shifty: than what they are now.

mashman

19th July 2010, 11:52

I'd go decriminalise and make the possession of it outside of the new boundaries to be higher :shifty: than what they are now.
[/B]

I would prefer they went the legalisation route. Decriminalisation, to me, is too half arsed... putting a government regulatory "committee" in charge of liaison with drug sellers is bound to lead to all sorts of monkey business... one problem being, what currently happens when a cannabis supplier is busted for "harder" drugs? a supply dries up, the price goes up, ?the crime goes up? etc...

I'd much rather see the government controlling everything cannabis related through legalisation... from production to distribution, as it'd be less open to "market volitility"...

scissorhands

19th July 2010, 18:53

I would prefer they went the legalisation route. Decriminalisation, to me, is too half arsed... putting a government regulatory "committee" in charge of liaison with drug sellers is bound to lead to all sorts of monkey business... one problem being, what currently happens when a cannabis supplier is busted for "harder" drugs? a supply dries up, the price goes up, ?the crime goes up? etc...

I'd much rather see the government controlling everything cannabis related through legalisation... from production to distribution, as it'd be less open to "market volitility"...

Home cultivation would reduce culture or scene or advertising and marketing.

Like alcohol culture, I question a culture around drug use. Usually you'll find top dog and loud mouth bullies becoming gang leader

slowpoke

19th July 2010, 20:06

blah blah

Religious people and wowsers agree with you.

blah blah

Its a bit sad this has degenerated into a slinging match.

blah blah

Get a brain morans!

Dude, it's not a shame, it's a direct result of your own inability keep your toys in the cot when someone disagrees with you. You are the worst offender in this thread. So much for peace, love and harmony.

For what it's worth, your references to Len Snee still being alive if drugs were freely available shows a certain naivete about how society works. It wouldn't matter in the slightest. There are always fuckers looking for a quick easy buck, no matter if it's at someone elses expense or illegal, and if drugs were freely avavilable they'd just find the next thing they can exploit to turn a $.

scissorhands

19th July 2010, 20:19

Dude, it's not a shame, it's a direct result of your own inability keep your toys in the cot when someone disagrees with you. You are the worst offender in this thread. So much for peace, love and harmony.

For what it's worth, your references to Len Snee still being alive if drugs were freely available shows a certain naivete about how society works. It wouldn't matter in the slightest. There are always fuckers looking for a quick easy buck, no matter if it's at someone elses expense or illegal, and if drugs were freely avavilable they'd just find the next thing they can exploit to turn a $.

blah blah blah and the two officers and dog last week

get a brain morans

I think the naivete you mention my way is ridiculous, I'm with Albert Einstein, Judge Grey, most intellectuals. Your with religious people and wowsers.

Plain and simple, pot kettle black

blah blah blah get a brain morans (so rude of me, oh!)

scumdog

19th July 2010, 20:26

blah blah blah and the two officers and dog last week

get a brain morans

I think the naivete you mention my way is ridiculous, I'm with Albert Einstein, Judge Grey, most intellectuals. Your with religious people and wowsers.

Plain and simple, pot kettle black

blah blah blah get a brain morans (so rude of me, oh!)

How about spelling moron the proper way....moron.

Edbear

19th July 2010, 20:38

Funny thing but the majority of people, esp the medical fraternity and the pollies and law enforcers seem to be wowsers and religious types. Which category do you fall into, Scummy?

http://www.nzdf.org.nz/cannabis/health-effects

Even one who advocates decriminalising cannabis admits in his research there was no difference in usage in countries and states that had decriminalised or legalised cannabis usage. No reduction in usage rates. Like alcohol which is legal, people will abuse and use regardless and the general attitude of many such is that they couldn't care less what the law says, they will freely break the law for their own interests.

Some members here show a scant regard for the law and do what they want and then complain when they run foul of the law enforcers. For these people, it wouldn't matter what the law was and they would complain about regulations limiting their "rights" to do as they please.

scumdog

19th July 2010, 20:48

Funny thing but the majority of people, esp the medical fraternity and the pollies and law enforcers seem to be wowsers and religious types. Which category do you fall into, Scummy?

The ban-recreational-all-mind-altering-substances if I was God catagory.

But I can live with the status quo (no, not the rock group).

Having said that, I have to say I've seen more sorry druggies than boozers.

mashman

19th July 2010, 20:49

http://www.nzdf.org.nz/cannabis/health-effects

that also explains a bang on the head. and you don't have to smoke it. Turn it into butter or something...

scissorhands

19th July 2010, 20:58

Okay, sorry if I have upset or offended anyone. I am trying to save lives??

And I am not scummy thankyou very much. And I dont want kiwis to smoke more cannabis, I want them to smoke less, especially kids in towns like Kaitaia. I'm not this dealer or grower thinking of my bottom line at all.

I have not been nearly as derogatory as some others here, labelling 400,000 kiwi as scummy, yet I am now threatened and bullied, for agreeing with most intellectuals, regarding the effects to the community and front line officers regarding prohibition.

And if you take offense with words like religious types and wowsers, jee, I'm sorry to have been offensive, it was never my intention.

I simply wanted to highlight where most pro prohibition lobbing comes from, thats all.

I sat in a policemans lounge and talked last week for an hour or so. I have provided accommodation for him and his girlfriend for some time now. I couldnt help but worry about him in the front line, after last week shooting.

I sincerely believe in my heart that prohibtion is harmful, have tried to express this belief, and now feel threatened and bullied, for trying to make a difference. Meh.

I agree with the harmful effects Edbear, I dont refute them at all. I use to rise at 4am when I lived in a monastery, my heart used to beat at around 35 bpm, my health was exceedingly fine.

And the unhealthy diet and grog most now 'enjoy' cause all manner of costly illness to themselves and state.

The stoner is not working playing guitar hero and laughing like a moran, let them have their fun in peace I say, they usually arnt hurting anyone unless they start to steal to buy expensive drugs? Police like dealing with stoners rather than drinkers Im told? Or has living in Grey Lynn for 20 years ruined my brain?

scumdog

19th July 2010, 21:18

Take cannabis away from the dealers and they'd find another illicit drug to market, it is the way of the world.

The morons need something exciting and illicit to give them a buzz - life is too boring any other way for them.

BTW: I'm Scummy.

scissorhands

19th July 2010, 22:07

BTW: I'm Scummy.

Well good to see I'm no the only one.:rockon: I really have nothing to gain but everything to lose by sticking my neck out here, its just what i believe to be true.

Edbear

20th July 2010, 07:50

Well good to see I'm no the only one.:rockon: I really have nothing to gain but everything to lose by sticking my neck out here, its just what i believe to be true.

I though everyone knew who Scummy was... :blink: Shows how careful one needs to be in making assumptions.

Okay, I take your point and appreciate your post. However it is not just religious types and wowsers advocating Cannabis remains illegal and it's not all intelligent people advocating it ne legalised. Sweeping erroneous statements do nothng to validate your argument and insulting people doesn't make you sound reasonable. Play the ball, not the man if you want to be taken seriously.

You need to consider the way laws are formulated and implemented. Think about all the "prohibition" laws, which most laws are. Using your arguments we should abandon speed laws, registration and WoF laws, after all, how much harm is done by people exceeding the speed limit by "just a few km/h"? How many accidents are caused by unregistered or unwarranted vehicles, yet people are criminalised by the authorities for breaking these laws.

Drugs are probably the most debated and controversial matters in law and are vigorously debated and researched by those charged with making the laws and regulations over their use and distribution. IMHO, alcohol should be far more vigorously regulated than it is and the only reason it is not is due to its history, much as, to a lesser extent was tobacco. Watch this space as to how alcoholism and binge drinking is dealt with in the future. Tobacco may be an indication of how this will pan out.

Alcohol use and abuse is a valid compqarison with Cannabis as to the likely outcome of decriminalising or legalising it. Witness the violence against Police fueled by alcohol. It is a reflection upon society, the attitude towards Police and the violence against Police, and there is little chance that legalising Cannabis will make any noticeable difference. As Scummy says, it will only be replaced by another drug due to the underlying problem which sees Cannabis as a vehicle for illegal activity to make money and power for the criminals.

scissorhands

20th July 2010, 08:55

I'm sorry but I had trouble accepting such an anti sentiment, when most of my experiences with cannabis users has been positive. And the people I know who badly affected, often would be like that anyway

I disagree about many of your points Ed, I dont see how two different substances can be causing the same problems. As the snippet below from European police agencies would support

'..... has written to the Cabinet arguing that cannabis should be regulated in time for the Rugby World Cup in order to decrease alcohol violence during World Cup parties.
"We need to learn from Portugal's experience. They openly permitted cannabis use during the European World Cup and it was a success: there was far less violence. Portugal’s drug laws since 2001 have regulated all drug use through a non-Court process called Commissions of Dissuasion, with greatly improved health results."
Referring to the Euro 2004 tournament between France and England. Branded as 'hooligans', 50,000 fans - notorious for their drunken antics and ability to instigate all-out riots - descended upon Lisbon. Rather than ban alcohol, the authorities decided instead to sanction cannabis use by English and French fans before the game. The police priority was alcohol. As a result, the match took place without incident, even in the immediate aftermath of England's 2-1 defeat.'

Cannabis generally makes people peaceful, alcohol fuels anger. They affect the body in different ways. The before mentioned policeman has domestic after domestic incidents in West Auckland.

In the absence of any scientific data, I would hazard a guess that this would improve vastly if the general drinking public used cannabis instead.

Many things would improve, especially health expenses incurred by the state. We could all appreciate that? Cannabis users are cheap to run, especially by alcohol users standards, they just keep losing their keys and sunglasses

Link to study on alcohol and violence, funnily the Scandinavians don't get violent when pissed http://www.sirc.org/publik/fvalcohol.html

Sun article cops let footy fans smoke weed http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article89952.ece

And the Rat Park experiments from wiki are a must read regarding addiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

Banditbandit

20th July 2010, 09:03

Alcohol use and abuse is a valid compqarison with Cannabis as to the likely outcome of decriminalising or legalising it. Witness the violence against Police fueled by alcohol. It is a reflection upon society, the attitude towards Police and the violence against Police, and there is little chance that legalising Cannabis will make any noticeable difference. As Scummy says, it will only be replaced by another drug due to the underlying problem which sees Cannabis as a vehicle for illegal activity to make money and power for the criminals.

Yes, maybe. However, there are a lot of basically ordinary decent people out there who smoke cannabis - the gangs make huge amounts of money off these people, not unlike the alcohol prohibition times in America ... and with the associated violence against police and others ...

If it was legal to grow a small amount of cannabis for personal use, but illegal to sell it, then a lot of basically decent people would be able to grow their own and stop dealing with the gangs ... cutting off a source of gang funding.

Yes, the gangs might find another way to make money - possibly through the sale of another drug .. however a lot of people who smoke cannabis would not use another drug ... it's true that 90% of heroin users started on cannabis - it's equally true that 90% of cannabis users never use another drug ... they either stop using or just continue with cannabis ...

The problem of cannabis is largely one of moral panic ... it's generally a victimless crime, and the effects are no worse than alcohol. The only reason to make cannabis illegal is a moral reason. And we don't all share that moral reason.

And I don't agree that legalising it will mean that people will turn up to work stoned - such as dentists, airline pilots, doctors etc etc ... as has been suggested some times ... they are just as likely to turn up to work drunk ... which is just as bad ...

Edbear

20th July 2010, 09:17

Yes, maybe. However, there are a lot of basically ordinary decent people out there who smoke cannabis - the gangs make huge amounts of money off these people, not unlike the alcohol prohibition times in America ... and with the associated violence against police and others ...

If it was legal to grow a small amount of cannabis for personal use, but illegal to sell it, then a lot of basically decent people would be able to grow their own and stop dealing with the gangs ... cutting off a source of gang funding.

Yes, the gangs might find another way to make money - possibly through the sale of another drug .. however a lot of people who smoke cannabis would not use another drug ... it's true that 90% of heroin users started on cannabis - it's equally true that 90% of cannabis users never use another drug ... they either stop using or just continue with cannabis ...

The problem of cannabis is largely one of moral panic ... it's generally a victimless crime, and the effects are no worse than alcohol. The only reason to make cannabis illegal is a moral reason. And we don't all share that moral reason.

And I don't agree that legalising it will mean that people will turn up to work stoned - such as dentists, airline pilots, doctors etc etc ... as has been suggested some times ... they are just as likely to turn up to work drunk ... which is just as bad ...

Are you sure about this? I suggest that those "basically decent people" are already growing a small amount for their personal use and do not call in to the tinnie houses. The Cannabis industry is a criminal scene and I'm sure the Police would paint a slightly different picture from the one you portray here. Maybe we can get some info from the authorites as to why they continue to support the law against Cannabis.

scissorhands

20th July 2010, 09:22

Are you sure about this? I suggest that those "basically decent people" are already growing a small amount for their personal use and do not call in to the tinnie houses. The Cannabis industry is a criminal scene and I'm sure the Police would paint a slightly different picture from the one you portray here. Maybe we can get some info from the authorites as to why they continue to support the law against Cannabis.

Or the law against weekend trading, oh thats gone. or the law against gayness, oh thats gone. Or the law against drinking after 6pm, oh thats gone.

The cannabis industry is made illegal by prohibition as was the alcohol industry....prohibition drives the criminality....

Heres some really stupid laws, 50 stupid laws from 50 states: http://www.elistmania.com/still/50_stupid_laws_from_50_states/ShowAll/

shrub

20th July 2010, 10:30

what prohibition does is place the marketing and distribution of a range of some of the most heavily traded products in the hands of organised criminals, and grants them tax free status. Where else can you sell horticultural produce for over $1000 kg tax free ? WHere else can you convert cheap chemicals into a substance that sells for (from what I recall) $1,000,000 kg in your own kitchen and not have to worry about employment agreements for your staff, OSH, cleanliness, resource consents etc? What other importer can turn a $1.00 can of baked beans into a product that sells for $100,000 by changing the contents?

I believe that the issue is a health problem, and ALL drugs should be legalised - yes, all drugs including P. If a P user could go down to a local clinic and purchase his hit for $10.00, and had a maximum amount able to be purchased in a set period and his transaction was recorded in a database it would allow the health authorities to monitor use and offer addiction support for people consuming over a certain amount. We would be able to help people who needed it, and there would be zero money in the drug, so the gangs wouldn't bother. And P is mainly not produced by the black power and mongrel mob, it's mostly available through organised Asian crime. In other words, drug prohibition has opened NZ to groups like the Triads.

There is a definition of insanity that goes something like "insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result". Prohibition has been an abject failure by any measure, yet our beloved leader's response to dealing wth the P problem was to make cold and flu drugs only available by prescription, yet hundreds of kgs of P and even more raw materials come in from China every day.

shrub

20th July 2010, 10:31

Maybe we can get some info from the authorites as to why they continue to support the law against Cannabis.

Because they're required to.

Banditbandit

20th July 2010, 11:57

Are you sure about this? I suggest that those "basically decent people" are already growing a small amount for their personal use and do not call in to the tinnie houses. The Cannabis industry is a criminal scene and I'm sure the Police would paint a slightly different picture from the one you portray here. Maybe we can get some info from the authorites as to why they continue to support the law against Cannabis.

No - many many ordinary people smoke a weekend joint - or two ... and they score from tinnie houses ... just sit outside a tinnie house and watch who goes in ... but be careful, the owners might think you're a D keeping an eye on them ... too risky to grow ... you might get away with $120 fine for possessing a tinnie - cultivation will get you PD at least ...

The harder drugs are certainly part of the criminal scene ...

It's in the police's interest to portray things as bad as possible so they get resources and backing ... much like the American military who painted the Socviets as black as possible to get more funding for new and higher powered weapons ...

Edbear

20th July 2010, 12:09

Because they're required to.

By whom?

No - many many ordinary people smoke a weekend joint - or two ... and they score from tinnie houses ... just sit outside a tinnie house and watch who goes in ... but be careful, the owners might think you're a D keeping an eye on them ... too risky to grow ... you might get away with $120 fine for possessing a tinnie - cultivation will get you PD at least ...

The harder drugs are certainly part of the criminal scene ...

It's in the police's interest to portray things as bad as possible so they get resources and backing ... much like the American military who painted the Socviets as black as possible to get more funding for new and higher powered weapons ...

Ahhh, the old conspiracy theory stance. I would respectfully suggest the Police would find this claim laughable and that they would much prefer not having to deal with gangs and tinnie houses and the whole criminal scene around the issue. The fact is that it is bad and the Police don't need to exaggerate.

It is, however in the media's interests to beat up the news stories and it is so laughably obvious when watching the news that they are really trying to provoke controversy and sensationalism by the words and phrases they use. Recently in interviews, I have applauded the Police spokespersons for correcting the journalists and countering their attempts.

-Alias-

20th July 2010, 12:13

I'm thinking Roosevelt - Piss-head drug addict.
I'm thinking Churchill - Piss-head drug addict.
I'm thinking Hitler - Tea-totaler vegetarian/Amphetamine Addict

I can see which path you want the world to go down.

Corrected for posterity.

As for the legalisation of all drugs, there's really only two groups of people whom argue for such a thing:

1. Drug users themselves
2. People that have faith in a idealistic socialist utopia.

Blatant fact is that in todays society it simply would not work

Take the drugs away from organised crime, and organised crime will simply find another income. Legitimise Meth and its ilk and you are asking for a complete breakdown in societal values.

Banditbandit

20th July 2010, 12:24

Take the drugs away from organised crime, and organised crime will simply find another income. Legitimise Meth and its ilk and you are asking for a complete breakdown in societal values.

Umm .. I'm kinda wondering about this "complete breakdown in societal values" .. didn't that haopen in the 1960s .. and again when we changed the homosexual laws, and the prostitution laws ??

I'm wondering what values are left to breakdown?

-Alias-

20th July 2010, 12:44

Umm .. I'm kinda wondering about this "complete breakdown in societal values" .. didn't that haopen in the 1960s .. and again when we changed the homosexual laws, and the prostitution laws ??

I'm wondering what values are left to breakdown?

Agreed, there's not much left to break down. However, the Meth addled brain is a somewhat different beast to the brain addled with cannibinoids, Lysergic acid, even opiates. Fact is that Meth is the number 1 drug of choice behind cannabis.

My point regarding societal values is that of a civilised society. Homosexuality and Prostitution do not risk lives. Drug use (whether illicit or state sanctioned) Does.

DMNTD

20th July 2010, 12:49

My point regarding societal values is that of a civilised society. Homosexuality and Prostitution do not risk lives. Drug use (whether illicit or state sanctioned) Does.

Intrigued here...how does canabliss risk lives?

A sensible, realistic answer would be appreciated and no I'm not referring to someone driving,working etc on weed

Edbear

20th July 2010, 13:17

Intrigued here...how does canabliss risk lives?

A sensible, realistic answer would be appreciated

This is KB, but we'll do our best... :sunny:

Personally I put it on par with alcohol as far as the health risks go in addition to the smoking risk. I've posted a link to the known health issues recently. I'm doing some research into the political and Police views and reasons for the laws as they stand. So watch this space for their responses, should be interesting.

Banditbandit

20th July 2010, 13:21

This is KB, but we'll do our best... :sunny:

Personally I put it on par with alcohol as far as the health risks go in addition to the smoking risk. I've posted a link to the known health issues recently. I'm doing some research into the political and Police views and reasons for the laws as they stand. So watch this space for their responses, should be interesting.

So ... I'm wondering if smoking cannabis is more or less risky than riding a motorcycle? And risky to whom? I don't mind risking my life - I smoke (tobacco) and ride motorcycles ... I don';t like other peole risking my life ... I object to dickhead car drivers risking my life ... I can't see how my neighbour smoking weed risks my life !

DMNTD

20th July 2010, 13:33

.. I can't see how my neighbour smoking weed risks my life !

Exactly (except for driving/riding etc as you mentioned)!
When living in a certain Northland town, the local Policeman has no issues if you wanted to smoke pot as long as you were with your (or your mates) private property. In other words out of site of tourists etc.
He was a good bastard...a real bloke. Took no shit and hammered anyone that got out of line especially re Meth or sim

Edbear

20th July 2010, 13:35

So ... I'm wondering if smoking cannabis is more or less risky than riding a motorcycle? And risky to whom? I don't mind risking my life - I smoke (tobacco) and ride motorcycles ... I don';t like other peole risking my life ... I object to dickhead car drivers risking my life ... I can't see how my neighbour smoking weed risks my life !

As I've also said, riding a motorcycle is not inherently detrimental to one's health. Only if you crash, whereas, Cannabis, like smoking and alcohol is inherently detrimental to your health whether used legally or illegally. It is a health risk to those who use and especially abuse, it and as far as neighbours go, again, like alcohol, it is a risk to you through their actions while under its influence, ie: driving or causing an accident somehow.

Motorcycling does not reduce one's cognitive abilities, whereas Alcohol and drugs do by their very nature.

-Alias-

20th July 2010, 13:52

Intrigued here...how does canabliss risk lives?

A sensible, realistic answer would be appreciated and no I'm not referring to someone driving,working etc on weed

Ah. Therin lies the rub. I used the term drugs. not cannabis, but drugs. Cannabis will not kill you (unless you drive a vehicle whilst under the influence - then it might)

However, it can (and this is well documented) trigger psychosis amongst other things. There are quite a number of people in secure mental health facilities around the country who suffer from such psychosis, and some have consequently killed. There are always other factors of course.

I'm sure though that i do not need to explain how opiates, methamphetamine etc, can kill?

DMNTD

20th July 2010, 14:18

Ah. Therin lies the rub. I used the term drugs. not cannabis, but drugs. Cannabis will not kill you (unless you drive a vehicle whilst under the influence - then it might)

However, it can (and this is well documented) trigger psychosis amongst other things. There are quite a number of people in secure mental health facilities around the country who suffer from such psychosis, and some have consequently killed. There are always other factors of course.
Yes aware that some have gone off the deep end whilst smoking HUGE amounts of weed for a LONG time....so have people who drink too much etc blah blah

What I'm really getting at is that weed (only referring to weed here) if used in low quantities will not send you over the edge.
Mis-use of virtually anything (including water :mellow:) will cause damage

I'm sure though that i do not need to explain how opiates, methamphetamine etc, can kill?
No not at all...I spent over a decade on gratuitous amounts of opiates so have a fair idea :sick:
"em doctors eh...bloody drug dealers! :shifty:

Edbear

20th July 2010, 14:24

[B]No not at all...I spent over a decade on gratuitous amounts of opiates so have a fair idea :sick:
"em doctors eh...bloody drug dealers! :shifty:

Almost that long for me as well. Four neurologists knew what I was taking, yet no-one suggested it might be killing me... :angry:

Was living nightmare to get off them! :sick:

scissorhands

20th July 2010, 14:47

Almost that long for me as well. Four neurologists knew what I was taking, yet no-one suggested it might be killing me... :angry:

Was living nightmare to get off them! :sick:

Coffee has caused my body and life more damage than any other drug/stimulant, for one reason or another I love the stuff

-Alias-

20th July 2010, 14:51

Yes aware that some have gone off the deep end whilst smoking HUGE amounts of weed for a LONG time....so have people who drink too much etc blah blah

What I'm really getting at is that weed (only referring to weed here) if used in low quantities will not send you over the edge.
Mis-use of virtually anything (including water :mellow:) will cause damage

It might surprise you that it does not necessarily have to be a HUGE amount smoked over a LONG time. I have the benefit of some small exposure to people who have been affected in this way - some which really didnt smoke 2/5 of fuck all compared to say myself during my teens and twenties.

Fact is, weed can be harmful. Its not overly common, but it can.

But really, this is a diversion. My argument isn't against weed.

No not at all...I spent over a decade on gratuitous amounts of opiates so have a fair idea :sick:
"em doctors eh...bloody drug dealers! :shifty:

See my earlier comment re state sanctioned drugs ;)

shrub

20th July 2010, 15:19

By whom?

The law. If they chose not to prosecute you would have a huge number of nice white middle class "concerned of Bishopdales" up in arms led by Jim Anderton and Paul Holmes.

shrub

20th July 2010, 15:23

Motorcycling does not reduce one's cognitive abilities, whereas Alcohol and drugs do by their very nature.

Not really. I find that when I'm riding my bike I am crap at crosswords, holding conversations and texting. I very, very rarely smoke pot these days because I am afraid i got bored with it (there goes the gateway/addiction theory), but find when I do the best thing is just to chill out at home with some sounds, a glass of wine and maybe some conversation.

Banditbandit

20th July 2010, 16:33

Not really. I find that when I'm riding my bike I am crap at crosswords, holding conversations and texting. I very, very rarely smoke pot these days because I am afraid i got bored with it (there goes the gateway/addiction theory), but find when I do the best thing is just to chill out at home with some sounds, a glass of wine and maybe some conversation.

My God ... you mix your drugs ! (snigger ...)

shrub

20th July 2010, 16:51

My God ... you mix your drugs ! (snigger ...)

It gets worse. I enjoy a Laphroiag or a Courvoisier XO, sometimes both with my herb. Then I go right over the edge and add yet another drug and smoke one of my (sadly shrinking) supply of duty free Romeo et Juliets.

Maybe Laphroiag is a gateway drug? it's bloody addictive.

mashman

21st July 2010, 12:33

Home cultivation would reduce culture or scene or advertising and marketing.

Like alcohol culture, I question a culture around drug use. Usually you'll find top dog and loud mouth bullies becoming gang leader

I wish lol... and i'm sure everyone goes to Amsterdam to see the canals :shifty:... Unfortunately a cannabis culture, once legalised/decriminalised, will be inevitable, just like we have car cultures, motorcycle cultures, booze and drug cultures already...

Having said that... legalising cannabis, putting in place "restrictions" similar to those of alcohol and centralising supply (if not from your own shed), could turn out to be quite an earner for the tourist industry?

Banditbandit

21st July 2010, 16:19

It gets worse. I enjoy a Laphroiag or a Courvoisier XO, sometimes both with my herb. Then I go right over the edge and add yet another drug and smoke one of my (sadly shrinking) supply of duty free Romeo et Juliets.

Maybe Laphroiag is a gateway drug? it's bloody addictive.

Dunno about gateway addiction - but it certainly sounds like an expensive one ..

scumdog

21st July 2010, 16:51

It gets worse. I enjoy a Laphroiag

Maybe Laphroiag is a gateway drug? it's bloody addictive.

Damn great drrop, my No1 whisky.:yes:

shrub

21st July 2010, 17:06

Dunno about gateway addiction - but it certainly sounds like an expensive one ..

Yeah, I keep thinking I should switch to P, but getting wound up and agitated vs sitting back and relaxing in my comfy chair with a cigar and a whisky - well, there's no contest really.

scissorhands

21st July 2010, 19:35

I wish lol... and i'm sure everyone goes to Amsterdam to see the canals :shifty:... Unfortunately a cannabis culture, once legalised/decriminalised, will be inevitable, just like we have car cultures, motorcycle cultures, booze and drug cultures already...

Having said that... legalising cannabis, putting in place "restrictions" similar to those of alcohol and centralising supply (if not from your own shed), could turn out to be quite an earner for the tourist industry?

Maybe a culture aint so bad, and as you say inevitable. Maybe thats the problem with NZ and alcohol....

I just think of a young man say with a 1 gram cannabis a week consumption say, who starts to hang out at the cannabis cafe. Soon after being around the older hands hes up to their level of 1 gram a day....even though hes half their age and new to the drug.

Even greening out newbies for kicks laughing at their state, usually receives none of the critical attention it deserves from a health and safety perspective.

When i once took an impossibly large lungful via a bucky bong, smoking cannabis thereafter required larger doses to achieve the same result, just like with anything really. Large heavilly condensed lungfuls cause much bronchial damage, yet most cannabis scenes I've been around glorify the big hit, big toke, much like the sculling at alcohol gatherings.

Like hops, cannabis suspended in liquid like alcohol is much healthier and less addictive without the CO3 and noxious gases from burning.

Some awesome cocktails with thujone containing sage, other herbs and plants could be made with a still. Cannabis is very similar to hops in plant biology

A local tradition in Banda Acer Indonesia is to cook for the family and throw in some buds. These people are strongly Muslim and intoxication is frowned upon. So they only include enough for a healthy effect. I doubt whether Kiwis would have that much self control

mashman

22nd July 2010, 13:43

Maybe a culture aint so bad, and as you say inevitable. Maybe thats the problem with NZ and alcohol....

I just think of a young man say with a 1 gram cannabis a week consumption say, who starts to hang out at the cannabis cafe. Soon after being around the older hands hes up to their level of 1 gram a day....even though hes half their age and new to the drug.

Even greening out newbies for kicks laughing at their state, usually receives none of the critical attention it deserves from a health and safety perspective.

When i once took an impossibly large lungful via a bucky bong, smoking cannabis thereafter required larger doses to achieve the same result, just like with anything really. Large heavilly condensed lungfuls cause much bronchial damage, yet most cannabis scenes I've been around glorify the big hit, big toke, much like the sculling at alcohol gatherings.

Like hops, cannabis suspended in liquid like alcohol is much healthier and less addictive without the CO3 and noxious gases from burning.

Some awesome cocktails with thujone containing sage, other herbs and plants could be made with a still. Cannabis is very similar to hops in plant biology

A local tradition in Banda Acer Indonesia is to cook for the family and throw in some buds. These people are strongly Muslim and intoxication is frowned upon. So they only include enough for a healthy effect. I doubt whether Kiwis would have that much self control

I think part of the problem, not just with NZ either, is that the law makers have spent their lives avoiding the stuff, as it looks bad in the media, and therefore have only read the blurb on how bad for you it is... gotta save the health service money, i mean save the non-Borg from themselves...

lol, we know self control is a problem in every walk of life though and only, usually, exercise it when we're alone... the rest of the time it's follow the crowd, unless you can assert your individualism (i know how wanky that sounds :)), which I guess is what you're referring too... I do, however, believe that it is VERY possible to do (educate the individual that is)... but you're gonna have to change the school curriculum somewhat :)...

Edbear

22nd July 2010, 14:12

I think part of the problem, not just with NZ either, is that the law makers have spent their lives avoiding the stuff, as it looks bad in the media, and therefore have only read the blurb on how bad for you it is... gotta save the health service money, i mean save the non-Borg from themselves...

lol, we know self control is a problem in every walk of life though and only, usually, exercise it when we're alone... the rest of the time it's follow the crowd, unless you can assert your individualism (i know how wanky that sounds :)), which I guess is what you're referring too... I do, however, believe that it is VERY possible to do (educate the individual that is)... but you're gonna have to change the school curriculum somewhat :)...

Education is the key and I fully agree with you there. However it's only a minor adjustment to the school curriculum to include drug and alcohol education. School has proven to be quite effective at getting messages across with a good rate if success. What is more of a problem, is educating those not in school, those who make up the vast majority of drug users/abusers.

The only way to reach these ones is through TV and the courts. Perhaps if the courts would impose mandatory education for repeat offenders which includes programs for getting out of the environment that leads to drug abuse we may see some inprovements. It's an issue that, along with others such as the boy-racer/ shoplifting/ street violence/ alcohol binge drinking, goes deeper than simply catching and fining or imprisoning those caught.

As long as offenders see the issue as "us and them" (Police/Pollies), it will remain an issue. Same as speeding, really. "It's my right to do as I please if I'm not hurting anyone else!" This attitude is at the core of the problems in society with too many unwilling to compromise for the common good. Too many insisting on their rights and too few looking out for the good of others as it means compromise and self-denial.

The old saying, "No man is an Island" is not understood and if we were all able to have our own island and live by our own rules we would be very lonely indeed.

mashman

22nd July 2010, 14:40

Education is the key and I fully agree with you there. However it's only a minor adjustment to the school curriculum to include drug and alcohol education. School has proven to be quite effective at getting messages across with a good rate if success. What is more of a problem, is educating those not in school, those who make up the vast majority of drug users/abusers.

The only way to reach these ones is through TV and the courts. Perhaps if the courts would impose mandatory education for repeat offenders which includes programs for getting out of the environment that leads to drug abuse we may see some inprovements. It's an issue that, along with others such as the boy-racer/ shoplifting/ street violence/ alcohol binge drinking, goes deeper than simply catching and fining or imprisoning those caught.

As long as offenders see the issue as "us and them" (Police/Pollies), it will remain an issue. Same as speeding, really. "It's my right to do as I please if I'm not hurting anyone else!" This attitude is at the core of the problems in society with too many unwilling to compromise for the common good. Too many insisting on their rights and too few looking out for the good of others as it means compromise and self-denial.

The old saying, "No man is an Island" is not understood and if we were all able to have our own island and live by our own rules we would be very lonely indeed.

agreed... but that's not the sort of education I was talking about... those that are already out of school and using/abusing will find their own path... like you say there's fook all we can do about that and agree that you can't fix everyone over night... I wouldn't dare try it... and if they're enjoying it that much, TV ain't gonna make a difference... need a few xbox games to get the idea across lol...

The education i'm talking about is 13:30 on a friday afternoon, skin up, get the kids round the back of the bikeshed, quick smoke (Cannabis only for now, an experiment as to the effectiveness of the education if you like) and then back into the classroom for Whiteys, giggles and a discussion to acsertain what was here before space existed :rofl:, ok a discussion as to what they're feeling... When it comes to "drugs", there's no substitute for experience (personal experience that is)... but that's what i'd like to see happen...

I would hope that real life education would allow for better judgement calls...

Hinny

27th July 2010, 14:39

As long as offenders see the issue as "us and them" (Police/Pollies), it will remain an issue. Same as speeding, really. "It's my right to do as I please if I'm not hurting anyone else!" This attitude is at the core of the problems in society with too many unwilling to compromise for the common good. Too many insisting on their rights and too few looking out for the good of others...

You appear to be unaware of the results of decriminalisation in various countries around the world.
The attitude towards Police changed markedly and for the batter for instance in Oregon when cannabis use was decriminalised.
You are right with the speeding issue to I believe. The 'Speed Kills' policy has proven itself to be counter productive.
In the same vein drug education has proven to be counter productive. Especially so when the educators tell lies. It is a case of get caught telling lies once and you will not be trusted again. The whole anti drug message gets lost.
There certainly are some insidious drugs out there. P and Nicotine are the worst in my opinion.
The Australian documentary on drugs entitled 'The Devil You Know' is recommended viewing. Particularly so for prohibitionists.
I was particularly impressed by the Heroin users that were interviewed. Each was of the opinion that they could give up Heroin anytime, but cigarettes ... No way. Each drug highly addictive. One not physiologically harmful and highly illegal. The other a deadly poison that attacks every organ in your body and legal.
The world is kind of screwed up.
The argument for the abolition of the illegal drug trade is the preferred argument from both camps. The measures to achieve this goal is the stumbling block. That argument should be indefensible on the part of the prohibitionists. We only have to look at history. Prohibition and the drug wars have escalated cannabis use from the preserve of a few black US musicians to become a worldwide scourge of violence, corruption and increased criminality.
It is time to get sensible and stop imagining different outcomes from continued use of failed policies.

Edbear

27th July 2010, 15:46

The bottom line is that people want to be able to do as they please without someone else telling them they can or can't and if they can, how much/fast/where and what.

It doesn't take rocket science to lay out medically proven effects upon the body and mind of various substances. Each time I get a prescription it comes with a fact sheet about the medicine and its possible or likely side effects along with a description of what it is for.

People will rebel or ignore laws that don't suit them regardless, all the while insisting they have both the right and valid reason for doing so. I can control and handle alcohol and choose not to get blotto, others can't or don't want to. I can drive safely at high speeds, others can't drive safely at any speed.

You cannot have a civilised society with individual laws for each person based upon that person's estimation of their knowledge and abilities. We can bemoan the 100km/h limit and the fact that it is enforced, but we also agree that many drivers are not safe at even 80km/h. If we were to try to exercise carte-blanche to drive as we felt capable the roads would be absolute chaos and the carnage would be even worse than it is now.

Same with drug use - maybe you can handle a modicum of Cannabis and restrict yourself in its use, many can't and as with alcohol, don't know how and couldn't care anyway about self-control.

What no-one can argue against is the detrimental effects of drugs and alcohol on the body and the naturally addictive nature of them. Many people cannot limit their use or choose not to in their desire to get drunk or stoned and thus impose upon the freedoms and rights of others who have to deal with the consequences, such as the Police, Ambo's and hospitals along with their families.

The message I am reading here, is that some simply want the right to do as they please without regulation - that the rules and regulations should be for those that "need them". Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way...

mashman

28th July 2010, 10:31

scissorhands

28th July 2010, 10:48

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with this (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100727/tuk-drug-users-should-face-penalties-6323e80.html), i'd like to see what Nutt's proposals are... At least he acknowledges that prohibitive measures aren't working... shame he was roasted :shifty: by his party... Good of society v Vote losing, grrrrrr that really pisses me awf, but sums up how badly disconnected from society governments really are...

Its government pandering to big corporations to be exact....using the same witch hunting techniques of the last 1000years by demonizing herbal anything, including cannabis

They just dont care about right or wrong....check this vid about big pharma:yes::yes::yes::yes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AazObF_pHSU&feature=related

mashman

28th July 2010, 12:03

I don't doubt that that is the case and that governments are the major purchasers (on our behalf) of the drugs... but drug companies are a whole new topic :)...

Why don't we adopt the Portuguese "method" of drug control? Sounds like they've realised that prohibition doesn't work and have changed their "system" to reflect their society and have reportedly made massive financial savings... I'd be interested to see any documentation from the Portuguese Police, or govt for that matter, on the effect it has had on "Policing" in general...

got anything like that lying around Sciss?

Hinny

29th July 2010, 12:19

The UK adopted a policy for Heroin users whereby registered users were able to obtain their daily dose from a pharmacy. In the same way that in NZ addicts get Methadone which I believe is a much worse drug than Heroin.
Spectacular drop in deaths.
People were getting pure Heroin not something cut with all manner of additives including I believe Quinine and Ajax. Differing strengths led to overdoses.

Radically reduced rate of new users.
No money in promoting Heroin use for drug dealers.

Drug related crime fell dramatically.
No longer needing huge amounts of money to fund their drug use. Imagine how many burglaries one would need to commit to fund a thousand pound a week habit.

Our Drug Policy makers labeled the UK experiment a failure. :shit:
The US DEA pushed for the abolition of the policy and were eventually rewarded by the repeal of the law. The expected outcomes materialised but the old policy is still in force with the rest of society bearing the costs.

There is seemingly no logic in policies which prohibit the ingestion of certain substances into ones body.
Ain it hurts no one do thee what thou whilst.
I find no fault in the logic of this.
Curbing personal freedom in the name of democracy is little more than mob rule.

'One of the central assumptions of the concept of democracy, perhaps its most central assumption, is that by and large human beings are better judges of their own interests…. The operating maxim of the democratic ideology is, “Whoever wears the shoe knows best where it pinches.”' Sidney Hook.

Hinny

31st July 2010, 10:35

Relevant and Pertinent.

Albert Einstein quotes:

Today's problems cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them.

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.

Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.

The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.

Paul in NZ

31st July 2010, 18:20

If pot is such a relaxing mellow you out kinda drug...... How come people keep shooting cops to protect it? i dunno.....

Hinny

31st July 2010, 18:39

=cJ=

31st July 2010, 18:49

I guess what REALLY gets me confused is that if I consume any drug, then go on to harm nobody other than myself, what reason is there to say I've done wrong?

That is the bit I really struggle with when it comes to drug laws, similarly to how I struggle with speeding rules. I can't feel bad about breaking them, as I am hurting no-one in the process, unlike say, if I stole something, or hurt someone.

If I was under the influence of something and caused harm, then that would be a different story however, but then I've hurt/harmed someone.

Edbear

31st July 2010, 18:57

agreed... but that's not the sort of education I was talking about... those that are already out of school and using/abusing will find their own path... like you say there's fook all we can do about that and agree that you can't fix everyone over night... I wouldn't dare try it... and if they're enjoying it that much, TV ain't gonna make a difference... need a few xbox games to get the idea across lol...

The education i'm talking about is 13:30 on a friday afternoon, skin up, get the kids round the back of the bikeshed, quick smoke (Cannabis only for now, an experiment as to the effectiveness of the education if you like) and then back into the classroom for Whiteys, giggles and a discussion to acsertain what was here before space existed :rofl:, ok a discussion as to what they're feeling... When it comes to "drugs", there's no substitute for experience (personal experience that is)... but that's what i'd like to see happen...

I would hope that real life education would allow for better judgement calls...

Everyone knows smoking is bad for your health... :bash:

I guess what REALLY gets me confused is that if I consume any drug, then go on to harm nobody other than myself, what reason is there to say I've done wrong?

That is the bit I really struggle with when it comes to drug laws, similarly to how I struggle with speeding rules. I can't feel bad about breaking them, as I am hurting no-one in the process, unlike say, if I stole something, or hurt someone.

If I was under the influence of something and caused harm, then that would be a different story however, but then I've hurt/harmed someone.

See my post 112 above. It explains your reasoning.

=cJ=

31st July 2010, 19:20

Everyone knows smoking is bad for your health... :bash:

See my post 112 above. It explains your reasoning.

Yep, so you're saying laws are made for some "greater good". I'll assume this is the case, then run with why I disagree with this.

Firstly, and I guess at the core of why I don't like a lot of laws is that they require some trust in a politician (or political system, albeit with "expert" advice) who has drawn an arbitrary limit on a value (e.g. speed, level of intoxication, relative harm of a substance) which is then enforced in a draconian manner (e.g. our current speeding, drug, or alcohol laws).

Firstly, this requires trust in politicians to make decisions, and I am deeply uncomfortable with leaving decisions in my life up to someone I have no trust in. However, putting this personal dislike aside for a second, there are other (I hope more rational) reasons I am uncomfortable with drug, speeding and similar laws.

I guess I fail to see how the arbitrary enforcement of any variable factor can be regarded as successful. As a personal example, I wouldn't put myself in control of a vehicle after more than a can of beer, although I would to the best of my understanding, be under the legal limit for alcohol. Am I committing a crime by driving after drinking a can of beer?

I see a system which tolerates the harm of consuming alcohol and tobacco yet prosecutes and persecutes the (arguably) less harmful consumption of cannabis as one which is at worst hypocritical, at best, flawed or misguided.

Is this flawed thinking?

Would having a system which prosecutes consequences rather than actions be more effective?

mashman

31st July 2010, 19:23

Everyone knows smoking is bad for your health... :bash:

a schmorgers board of choice then, including cookies and cakes. healthy of course :) who knows, you may cut out smoking completely? tis ALL in the education no?

Edbear

31st July 2010, 19:26

Yep, so you're saying laws are made for some "greater good". I'll assume this is the case, then run with why I disagree with this.

Firstly, and I guess at the core of why I don't like a lot of laws is that they require some trust in a politician (or political system, albeit with "expert" advice) who has drawn an arbitrary limit on a value (e.g. speed, level of intoxication, relative harm of a substance) which is then enforced in a draconian manner (e.g. our current speeding, drug, or alcohol laws).

Firstly, this requires trust in politicians to make decisions, and I am deeply uncomfortable with leaving decisions in my life up to someone I have no trust in. However, putting this personal dislike aside for a second, there are other (I hope more rational) reasons I am uncomfortable with drug, speeding and similar laws.

I guess I fail to see how the arbitrary enforcement of any variable factor can be regarded as successful. As a personal example, I wouldn't put myself in control of a vehicle after more than a can of beer, although I would to the best of my understanding, be under the legal limit for alcohol. Am I committing a crime by driving after drinking a can of beer?

I see a system which tolerates the harm of consuming alcohol and tobacco yet prosecutes and persecutes the (arguably) less harmful consumption of cannabis as one which is at worst hypocritical, at best, flawed or misguided.

Is this flawed thinking?

Would having a system which prosecutes consequences rather than actions be more effective?

What I do agree with you on is the current status of alcohol which continues to lead the way as far as harm to everyone is concerned and there is no political will to ban alcohol for obvious reasons, so the only option with it is to prosecute consequences.

Can I ask you, would you drive after smoking Cannabis?

Edbear

31st July 2010, 19:34

a schmorgers board of choice then, including cookies and cakes. healthy of course :) who knows, you may cut out smoking completely? tis ALL in the education no?

Ah I question the healthy claim. What is the reason and purpose for drinking or taking drugs? Both have a detrimental effect on the body and mind, are depressants and diminish the taker's ability to focus and think clearly. Both, like nicotine also fool the body into believing it has a benefit. Note how people claim to need a cig to calm the nerves? Cigarettes, in fact cause nervous tension.

=cJ=

31st July 2010, 19:54

What I do agree with you on is the current status of alcohol which continues to lead the way as far as harm to everyone is concerned and there is no political will to ban alcohol for obvious reasons, so the only option with it is to prosecute consequences.

Can I ask you, would you drive after smoking Cannabis?

No, I wouldn't, as the consequences of it for me would be that I would probably fall off my bike and hurt myself or someone else, which pretty much breaks my core value of doing my best to not go hurting anyone.

This is where again I struggle, as the obvious answer that I would give to what I've said is to go "ah-hah, you've admitted you wouldn't drive/ride stoned, so it must be bad and must be banned!".

This fails to take into account I am pretty much a "soft-cock" (read: fairly susceptible) when it comes to any chemicals/drugs, as evidenced by my doubting my driving after one standard drink.

I guess I've extrapolated from this to conclude I'm going to be similar on other drugs, and hence stay clear of them if I'm going to drive/ride/put myself in a position I could do harm.

Problem is, and I'll go digging for the article, but I recall there has been research done on levels of blood alcohol and it's relationship to impairment that indicate there is very little relationship between the two, beyond a broad "if you drink more, eventually, you will be impaired more" kind of relationship. By extrapolation, this should be similar for cannabis.

From this, it would be reasonable to say that the presence of a drug in my system should not in itself be a crime, but rather the effects or impairment that drug has on my behavior and/or abilities. For example, if I was severely stoned and sat and stared at a wall for a few hours, does that matter? As another example, if I was to get mildly drunk, get violent and assault someone, I would argue it DOES matter.

In my best case scenario, I would argue that if no harm was done, then no crime was committed, however, as an intermediate position, I would be far more comfortable with (for example) a system where driving while impaired was based on an impairment test rather than a test for impairing substances.

Again, all this leads back to the argument that the drug cannabis itself is not the problem, rather it is the effects that drugs have on people that need to be looked at. In the case of cannabis, I can't see it as any more dangerous than other, currently legal drugs, and see it as possibly less harmful than alcohol. Given this I find it somewhat hypocritical that we persecute one, yet permit and promote the other.

Edbear

31st July 2010, 20:08

No, I wouldn't, ...(SNIP),... I can't see it as any more dangerous than other, currently legal drugs, and see it as possibly less harmful than alcohol. Given this I find it somewhat hypocritical that we persecute one, yet permit and promote the other.

I understand your reasoning, however I would say that while legal, the current state of things sees alcohol being branded for what it is, that of a burden on society that is proving very difficult to deal with. The authorities are coming down ever harder on its abuse but there is no quick fix and if we do use alcohol as an example, should we also free up Cannabis use lest it become the "new alcohol"?

It has been noted that hemp and Cannabis have perfectly legitimate uses and may have significant benefits in medicine yet to be fully explored. Alcohol has very little to recommend it at all. I do love a cold beer on a hot day after mowing the lawn, but the effects of too much on my system are not desirable as far as I am concerned.

Like I said about speed limits, you may be perfectle safe above the legal limit yet we know many, if not most drivers on the road are unsafe at speeds far lower. Who decides the limit for everyone since it is impossible to have variation for individuals?

=cJ=

31st July 2010, 21:27

Like I said about speed limits, you may be perfectle safe above the legal limit yet we know many, if not most drivers on the road are unsafe at speeds far lower. Who decides the limit for everyone since it is impossible to have variation for individuals?

Heh, not at all, I rode the Napier-Taupo the other day and the legal speed limit was way above what I was safe at, drizzle plus night made sure I really didn't have a hope of going anywhere near 100km/hr, so for me there's times and places for appropriate speeds.

Perhaps we need higher barriers for entry to our roads? Perhaps we need a graduated plate/license system where as you get better (with PROPER car/bike control tests) you are proven capable of higher speeds?

Perhaps we need sane speed limits on roads, where some are under 100, others are over depending on the quality of the road?

Anyways, we're going to be getting off topic here :-) I'll drag it back to our original drug laws/ruling/alcohol stuff.

I agree the ideal solution would be that we would have a bunch of people with the responsibility and self control to drink and use substances, erm, responsibly?

I accept fully your statement about alcohol being a burden on society as it stands, and that we don't want to replace one burden with another, that's a waste of time :-) I wonder if we replaced alcohol with cannabis as our society's drug of choice would we have the same problems that we have with alcohol?

Would another option be to take away ALL rules associated with alcohol, so no limits on drinking age? My reasoning behind this is that then people will have bad experiences younger, hopefully conditioning them to behave more responsibly later in life? I remember most of my defining education about what to touch and not touch had happened by the time I was old enough to legally drink, so I wonder if having bad experiences earlier in life have taught me to respect alcohol more?

scissorhands

1st August 2010, 08:36

So i went to The Daktory last night, first time in ages and hung out with 'the family':innocent:

As you might expect, these people consume ENORMOUS QUANTITIES OF DAK :shit:really!!

So, if you were new to the effects of cannabis, consuming as much as they do, it would be like having 50 plus standard drinks over an evening. :sick:

50 drinks over a few hours would kill most people. Yet, many of these hardened activists and cannabis culture people, DO THIS EVERY NIGHT!!!:yes:

Cannabis is safer than alcohol.
It is very popular.
By this token, replacing alcohol use with cannabis use, though not ideal ..... is a good thing.

When I see such high consumption by heart goes out to those who repeatedly do it, from a self care and self love point of view. They cant be happy, without it, and many have reliance on cannabis:mellow:.....

But when I see the effect on themselves and those around especially society and community, its hard for me to judge their actions as 'harmful'..........because the harm is so minimal:gob:

And, they all drove home afterwards as per normal:blink:

(basicly they consume the strongest cannabis in ridiculous amounts and appear like a sober person because they have tolerance, this fact alone makes the safety of cannabis, worthy as a replacement to constant need of society to 'have a few', as this urge will not diminish overnight, and may probably never will!)

Prohibition and the creation of black markets, is harmful to society and criminalises people who have health issues, not legal ones, except in prohibition...

mashman

1st August 2010, 12:38

Ah I question the healthy claim. What is the reason and purpose for drinking or taking drugs? Both have a detrimental effect on the body and mind, are depressants and diminish the taker's ability to focus and think clearly. Both, like nicotine also fool the body into believing it has a benefit. Note how people claim to need a cig to calm the nerves? Cigarettes, in fact cause nervous tension.

I understand what you mean Ed. But alcohol and Cannabis grow in nature and have always been used by the population... so who cares why people use them as those who will partake, wil and those who won't, won't... theory is useless as it very rarely mimics the practical... I'd rather the next generation were instructed on the pros and cons and then discovered it for themselves in a "safe" environment... hell it can be a parent and kids day :)...

davereid

1st August 2010, 13:17

This weeks "Kapiti Chronicle" adds another side to this debate.

It would appear that police, and licensed liquor outlets are being very careful at applying the law. The under 18s are finding it harder to buy alcohol from legal sources.

So a youngster has obtained some "home-made hooch." and made himself very very ill indeed.

Police are claiming this to be "wood alcohol" or methanol. (Personally, I think the police are wrong here.)

The issue is not so much the actual type of alcohol.

What we are seeing, is the effect of a tightening of supply, without a reduction in demand.

This youngster wanted a drug. He inevitably found someone who would supply, without regard to the consequences. This particular supplier doshed out homemade alcohol. But it could have easily have been any other drug.

Prohibition creates a high profit market for those prepared to sell in contravention of the law. Far from restricting access, it virtually ensures uncontrolled access to poor quality product.

Edbear

1st August 2010, 14:00

...SNIP...
I agree the ideal solution would be that we would have a bunch of people with the responsibility and self control to drink and use substances, erm, responsibly?

I accept fully your statement about alcohol being a burden on society as it stands, and that we don't want to replace one burden with another, that's a waste of time :-) I wonder if we replaced alcohol with cannabis as our society's drug of choice would we have the same problems that we have with alcohol?

Would another option be to take away ALL rules associated with alcohol, so no limits on drinking age? My reasoning behind this is that then people will have bad experiences younger, hopefully conditioning them to behave more responsibly later in life? I remember most of my defining education about what to touch and not touch had happened by the time I was old enough to legally drink, so I wonder if having bad experiences earlier in life have taught me to respect alcohol more?

This weeks "Kapiti Chronicle" adds another side to this debate.

It would appear that police, and licensed liquor outlets are being very careful at applying the law. The under 18s are finding it harder to buy alcohol from legal sources.

...SNIP...

This youngster wanted a drug. He inevitably found someone who would supply, without regard to the consequences. This particular supplier doshed out homemade alcohol. But it could have easily have been any other drug.

Prohibition creates a high profit market for those prepared to sell in contravention of the law. Far from restricting access, it virtually ensures uncontrolled access to poor quality product.

Herein really lies the problem. Too many have no regard for consequences, have no self-control and no ambitions beyond their next fix. This example of alcohol tells the truth. Even a legal drug will be abused and no amount of control or regulation will make a difference to this type of person. So prohibition or not, we are still going to be faced with abuse and crime.

Unless we can educate from youth and provide an environment conducive to a work ethic no amount of regulation will make a difference for a significant proportion of the population.

I have received acknowledgement of my requests for feedback from the Minister of Health and Police and should receive something from them shortly as to their views. Perhaps Scummy and Patrick could let us know how it affects their job for better or worse?

Edbear

1st August 2010, 14:07

scissorhands

1st August 2010, 14:52

Edbear

1st August 2010, 15:13

If a policeman or another sees someone who appears to be sober, they generally are sober. Being impaired and not appearing impaired is difficult, because you are impaired..... Being dangerously affected by a drug is easy to see in another. One there last night was that way, impaired and a dangerous driver. He had been drinking. Your drug of choice.

Like having a bad cold, the person next to you can usually tell whats up when they talk with you.

Most of the callous disregard for safety, that of the safety of NZers AND NZ police....lies elsewhere I think.....

The point of me starting this thread was to highlight the flawed thinking of prohibition, that many intellectuals including Albert Einstein, feel the need to speak up against because of the harm it causes people and communities. Laws put forward for corporate interests.... not that of the people. Your defending the assumption that prohibition is a good thing, is wrong, and harmful to NZers. Bottom line.

My honesty regarding driving and cannabis, then to have it thrown back in my face in a threatening manner, is up to you, but I hope others avoid haranguing people unfairly, when they make themselves vulnerable, stick their neck out, to make a point, for the common good

And for me, being unable to appreciate these learned opinions from respected philanthropists, Judges, scientists and even the NZ Police Association have given tacit approval toward ending cannabis prohibition, and the democratic mandate of the people............. I'm sorry dude.

I appreciate your honesty and didn't consider my post to be throwing it back in your face in a threatening manner, so sorry if it came across that way.

The problem is that dugs do affect the user and even prescription drugs carry warnings to that effect and it would be irresponsible for anyone to drive after taking anything that adversely affects their ability to the extent it places others at risk. Now for alcohol there are legal limits many argue are not realistic, but for drugs, prescription or not, there are no measures as to els for driving.

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm
Here is a link to Cannabis that should give you pause for thought and an exerpt from that link.

How does marijuana affect driving ability?
Driving experiments show that marijuana affects a wide range of skills needed for safe driving -- thinking and reflexes are slowed, making it hard for drivers to respond to sudden, unexpected events. Also, a driver's ability to "track" (stay in lane) through curves, to brake quickly, and to maintain speed and the proper distance between cars is affected. Research shows that these skills are impaired for at least 4-6 hours after smoking a single marijuana cigarette, long after the "high" is gone. If a person drinks alcohol, along with using marijuana, the risk of an accident greatly increases. Marijuana presents a definite danger on the road.

scissorhands

1st August 2010, 15:17

Agreed that being a stoned driver is unnacceptable, I was just highlighting relative harm.

Many people drive stoned as cluck every day. Seems funny that this has only become an issue last year??

And I believe few worldly ambitions is considered a spiritually good thing.....and good for the environment too:sunny:

Contentment according to Chinese is the secret to happiness. :yes:

Edbear

1st August 2010, 15:21

So to get back to the main point of the thread regards whether prohibition is effective and necessary, while we wait for the responses I've asked for, I don't believe the ban on Cannabis or any other illegal drug is making the Police job harder or more dangerous, especially if we equate their problems with alcohol which also causes them serious issues along the same lines.

I believe the problem is a deeper one than just regulatory and decriminalsing Cannabis use may be okay for a minority but won't help much at all.

scissorhands

1st August 2010, 15:40

I spend a lot of time around tee totalling Hindu people with very strong religious AND spiritual lives.

These young men and women have never had a beer in their lives!!!! No coffee!!! and just the occasional caffeine tea (chai) maybe one cup of tea a week....

The calmness and lack of mood swings, high degree of parenting shown. Intelligence and career, married with family life, stable gatherings of other sober Indians, predictable and placid social gatherings....are to me admirable and ideal for EVERYONE ON EARTH. I'm not being facetious.

IDEAL is IDEAL but practically.... I cant see our culture doing this in the short term.

Cannabis is a safer option for those needing 'a few' a few times too often. AND it is safer regarding road accidents

Banditbandit

2nd August 2010, 09:26

Ah I question the healthy claim. What is the reason and purpose for drinking or taking drugs? Both have a detrimental effect on the body and mind,

Drugs may have a detrimental effect on the body (not much in life doesn't ... including time) but only by the straight definition do they have a detrimental effect on the mind ... Yeah .. glue sniffing and other such crap will fuck you up completely ... that's not a drug ..... if you've every used drugs you wouldn't need to ask the question .. The answer is; "Because they are great !"

are depressants and diminish the taker's ability to focus and think clearly.

Not all drugs are depressants ... and the rest is only be straight definition.

mashman

6th August 2010, 14:34

OCD, ADHD - 20/20 last night, one woman had had enough when her son said he would rather be dead... what did she do to "help"?, not cure, but by christ she said it made a change... She describes the result as "Heaven, cause I get my little boy back"

Chapter 4, just after the ad :)

http://tvnz.co.nz/20-20/2020-s2010-e14-video-3686893

scissorhands

6th August 2010, 17:28

The ADHD and autism spectrum disorders often have kids on meds every day. Medpot is probably safer and more effective. A bit of booze at the right time would be okay too:blink:

However, a critical component to that news story was the obesity and junk food environment. Zoom to a brown rice, gluten free, diary free, outdoor lifestyle in the park future, and the need for any medication including cannabis would be less.

Thanks for the story Mashman...was out at the club again last night:innocent:

Hinny

6th August 2010, 20:46

An amusing interlude for the stoners following this thread.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Babypu3kT68&hl=en_GB&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Babypu3kT68&hl=en_GB&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

marie_speeds

8th August 2010, 08:28

12 year old at Manurewa Intermediate caught with a kilo of dope at school...hmmmmm:shit:

mashman

8th August 2010, 09:33

12 year old at Manurewa Intermediate caught with a kilo of dope at school...hmmmmm:shit:

:wavey: http://lazydaisylog.grrrlmeetsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/old/uploaded_images/Little-Miss-Naughty-729783.jpg ... nothing new there really... but I hope they catch the shit that's sending it into the schools... On the upside, theology class would probably be a little more interesting... Would you accept a class at school that deals with drugs in a practical manner instead of theory?

scissorhands

8th August 2010, 10:14

hmmm

Kids, education and recreational drug taking dont really go together for me.

A class in drug and alcohol education would be good, but not sure about the practical component

mashman

8th August 2010, 10:26

hmmm

Kids, education and recreational drug taking dont really go together for me.

A class in drug and alcohol education would be good, but not sure about the practical component

fair enough, i'm not wholly sold on the idea myself. But I am currently just sitting on the, we should do it, side of the fence. Am always willing to be talked out of it lol. Friday afternoon, practical cannabis or alcohol class (is really what I meant). Lunch, "smoke/drink" and then back to the class for a discussion on the effects that you're feeling with the expert, your teacher :)... t'would make for an interesting teacher pupil conversation, if not, then a "safe" social place for "experimentation"... That's why I think the idea holds merit. There's obviously much more to it than that, i know, parent consent, the teacher having to watch the kids whilst "consuming" to see who's just trying to get wellied and who's wondering about it and on and on and my gut tells me, i know, that the social consequences will be greatly nullified.

Stopping short of the Monthy Python Meaning Of Life Sex Ed class... for now :shifty: "what's wrong with a kiss boy"

scissorhands

8th August 2010, 13:02

I read a story,'The Island' where an amazing lost culture was insidiously invaded by another culture who wanted their minerals.

These island folk people took mushrooms during an initiation into adulthood at the age of sixteen, in a temple high on the main central mountain of their island, there was ritual and priests.

Probably better than some woodstock bourbons and cigges behind the bike sheds:shutup:

marie_speeds

8th August 2010, 21:25

:wavey: http://lazydaisylog.grrrlmeetsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/old/uploaded_images/Little-Miss-Naughty-729783.jpg ... nothing new there really... but I hope they catch the shit that's sending it into the schools... On the upside, theology class would probably be a little more interesting... Would you accept a class at school that deals with drugs in a practical manner instead of theory?

I was actually thinking that if I'd known that school kids were carrying a kilo of dope around in their school bags I'd probably mug them.....

:sunny:

mashman

9th August 2010, 09:24

Banditbandit

9th August 2010, 09:49

I was actually thinking that if I'd known that school kids were carrying a kilo of dope around in their school bags I'd probably mug them.....

:sunny:

Oh, I thought you might have BEEN one of the kids at school with a kilo of herb ...:yes:

Banditbandit

9th August 2010, 09:51

hmmm

Kids, education and recreational drug taking dont really go together for me.

A class in drug and alcohol education would be good, but not sure about the practical component

There's evidence that drug education actually has the opposite effect from what is intended. Well-meaning people try to educate the kids about the dangers of drugs - but half of them, hearing about drugs, want to try them for themselves ...

It was certainly that way for me and my contemporaries ...

Swoop

9th August 2010, 11:17

An amusing interlude for the stoners following this thread.
Superb musical humour! Worth watching all the way to the end...

marie_speeds

9th August 2010, 12:38

let's run it in conjunction with RE class :lol:

I was sent to convent school and look at how I turned out :innocent: Mind you I did find receiving the strap for some misdemeanour or another rather tittilating.....

Oh, I thought you might have BEEN one of the kids at school with a kilo of herb ...:yes:

I wish....

And to answer the question does prohibition work? No.... Tell someone they're not allowed to do something only makes the attraction all the more so irresistable....

Banditbandit

9th August 2010, 12:49

I was sent to convent school and look at how I turned out :innocent: Mind you I did find receiving the strap for some misdemeanour or another rather tittilating.....

They do tell me Catholic girls are the worst .. or maybe that's Catholic girls are the best ... depending on your perspective ...

oOGixxerOo

9th August 2010, 13:08

Drugs are BAD, they make people die, rape, kill, steal and cost society MILLIONS evey year... Drugs ruins familys, kids and generelly fuck up peoples lives...They just don't pull the drug addicts into their dept, they take others with them...

DMNTD

9th August 2010, 13:16

scissorhands

9th August 2010, 14:50

Banditbandit

9th August 2010, 16:09

Hinny

9th August 2010, 19:18

Hinny

9th August 2010, 19:22

I was sent to convent school and look at how I turned out :innocent:
And to answer the question does prohibition work? No.... Tell someone they're not allowed to do something only makes the attraction all the more so irresistable....

Aaaarh ! Catholic girls.
What's that saying about having Catholic tastes?
Smells like teen spirit - tastes like Anchovies.
You naughty, naughty girl! Come here and let me give you a good spanking. :yes:

mashman

10th August 2010, 12:16

I was sent to convent school and look at how I turned out :innocent: Mind you I did find receiving the strap for some misdemeanour or another rather tittilating.....

Yet more reasons to do it in conjunction with RE class :) there's just no denying the logic :shifty:

marie_speeds

10th August 2010, 15:08

http://www.laughparty.com/funny-pictures/Say-no-to-crack-1020.jpg

mashman

10th August 2010, 15:13

But sometimes it's just too hard :shifty:

http://thecrustycurmudgeon.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/tramp-stamp-1.jpg

marie_speeds

10th August 2010, 15:17

But sometimes it's just too hard :shifty:

http://thecrustycurmudgeon.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/tramp-stamp-1.jpg

Shock horror! I'm going to have to agree with you there :yes:

DMNTD

15th August 2010, 08:50

An interesting read... (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4025675/Cannabis-tactics-wrong-says-former-top-cop)from a retired Policeman's point of view.

carver

15th August 2010, 19:30

prohibition is fucking retarded

my body

my life

my choice

mashman

16th August 2010, 10:16

An interesting read... (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4025675/Cannabis-tactics-wrong-says-former-top-cop)from a retired Policeman's point of view.

So the cops know it's pointless, but have to endure because it's "political time bomb"... aye nothing like doing the best for ones subjects :shifty:...

scissorhands

17th August 2010, 09:06

Hinny

17th August 2010, 23:09

prohibition is fucking retarded

my body

my life

my choice

I am the Master of my fate;

I am the Captain of my soul.

slowpoke

18th August 2010, 01:03

Albert Einstein quotes:
The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.

Trust Al, he's really smart....:yes:

Have a think about the last three words of the quote.........and come up with your own arguments instead of quoting out of context a physicist on matters totally unrelated to physics, who knew nothing of New Zealand culture, and drugs/policing in the 21st century.

He was a smart guy, but he died 55 years ago.....he was born in the 19th century and you're using his social theories as arguments in the 21st century? The most "advanced" governments he saw were under Truman and Eisenhower for chrissake. We're talking before Rosa Parks sat in the "wrong" part of the bus. If you wanna return to 50's type values then go right ahead. But how's about you "courageously" use your intelligence to have a wee think about what Einstein actually lived through and explain how the out of context quotes you keep regurgitating apply to New Zealand.

If you could show him around the party spots and hospitals on a friday/saturday night and the the news reports of guys feeding kittens to their dog, or putting toddlers in dryers or just plain bashing them, or deliberately drivng their car into a crowd of people etc etc then followed by the inevitable epithet "but I was pissed and/or stoned" he would be shattered at the direction society has gone in the +50years since his death.

If you then suggested the situation would improve with open slather on drugs he wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry.

But you won't think, you'll just trawl the 'net for another out of context quote and say the above is just "emotive". But you've seen the news, so tell me which part of the above is untrue...and why.

I've got no problem with folks getting quietly mulled up at home, or relieving pain/medical issues etc but making all drugs freely available is a recipe for disastater. To use Einsteins social opinions from an age of comparatively high personal responsibilty and conformism (don't let that hair get past your collar young fella) to justify actions in an age of "I'm a victim" personal irresponsibility is non-sensical.

Yup, Einstein was smart alright, but most of us aren't, and therein lies the problem.

Banditbandit

18th August 2010, 09:18

Have a think about the last three words of the quote.........and come up with your own arguments instead of quoting out of context a physicist on matters totally unrelated to physics, who knew nothing of New Zealand culture, and drugs/policing in the 21st century.

He was a smart guy, but he died 55 years ago.....he was born in the 19th century and you're using his social theories as arguments in the 21st century? The most "advanced" governments he saw were under Truman and Eisenhower for chrissake. We're talking before Rosa Parks sat in the "wrong" part of the bus. If you wanna return to 50's type values then go right ahead. But how's about you "courageously" use your intelligence to have a wee think about what Einstein actually lived through and explain how the out of context quotes you keep regurgitating apply to New Zealand.

If you could show him around the party spots and hospitals on a friday/saturday night and the the news reports of guys feeding kittens to their dog, or putting toddlers in dryers or just plain bashing them, or deliberately drivng their car into a crowd of people etc etc then followed by the inevitable epithet "but I was pissed and/or stoned" he would be shattered at the direction society has gone in the +50years since his death.

If you then suggested the situation would improve with open slather on drugs he wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry.

But you won't think, you'll just trawl the 'net for another out of context quote and say the above is just "emotive". But you've seen the news, so tell me which part of the above is untrue...and why.

I've got no problem with folks getting quietly mulled up at home, or relieving pain/medical issues etc but making all drugs freely available is a recipe for disastater. To use Einsteins social opinions from an age of comparatively high personal responsibilty and conformism (don't let that hair get past your collar young fella) to justify actions in an age of "I'm a victim" personal irresponsibility is non-sensical.

Yup, Einstein was smart alright, but most of us aren't, and therein lies the problem.

EEeeeuuuu .. who got your tits in a tangle (Adolf !!! Control your attack dog ...)

You're right tho' ... Ol' Albert would be horrifed at the state of Western Society today .. and many many people would argue that his social opinions (and his values) are just as relevant today as they were back then ...

mashman

18th August 2010, 10:17

EEeeeuuuu .. who got your tits in a tangle (Adolf !!! Control your attack dog ...)

You're right tho' ... Ol' Albert would be horrifed at the state of Western Society today .. and many many people would argue that his social opinions (and his values) are just as relevant today as they were back then ...

Indeed... turns out old Abe felt the same way... musta been something in the water.

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. President.

scumdog

19th August 2010, 07:23

EEeeeuuuu .. who got your tits in a tangle (Adolf !!! Control your attack dog ...)

You're right tho' ... Ol' Albert would be horrifed at the state of Western Society today .. and many many people would argue that his social opinions (and his values) are just as relevant today as they were back then ...

Touring over a few States in the US at the mo (avoiding larger down-town areas like the plague though) and it struck me how immature NZ is as a general rule re behaviour etc - there's shit-loads of stuff that we see (and put with) in NZ that I did NOT see here - and all the Yanks I met were equally as friendly and hospitable as any Kiwi in my part of NZ.

Things that tickled me:
In Walmart the notices state you will be asked for I.D. if you look under 40!!!
Cockies use old tyres hung on their fences with the words 'NO TRESPASSING' as signs.

Anyhoo, I guess we had better get back on topic eh...

candor

19th August 2010, 21:34

Prohibition causes a lot of crashes - paranoics run to protect stash, Police chase oft impaired drivers - bang splat - clean up the bongs, pipes, blood and bone. No brains all round from pollies down (or is it up). Undertakers appreciate prohibition, it stops us issuing opioid addicts with narcan to save their lives in times of Overdose, amongst other discriminations thats quite serious to my mind. Prohibition does not inhibit use making it absurd.

Hinny

20th August 2010, 09:48

Touring over a few States in the US at the mo .

I read recently that California is considering decriminalisng Cannabis use.

Hinny

20th August 2010, 10:55

Interesting. Competition number 2!
Maybe we could start a KB competition.

<object width="480" height="385">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AxyupspJq8A?fs=1&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></object>

mashman

20th August 2010, 11:12

Interesting. Competition number 2!
Maybe we could start a KB competition.

Pot Idol :shifty:

scumdog

21st August 2010, 09:36

I read recently that California is considering decriminalisng Cannabis use.

It already has for broken-arses.

scissorhands

21st August 2010, 09:44

It already has for broken-arses.

Yes. USA forced the world to follow its prohibtion bandwagon circus, and is now again going to coerce other countries to once again do the same, this time with decriminalisation.

Always money is the motivation for their actions, not people or ethical considerations.

Word up dude

scumdog

21st August 2010, 10:10

Yes. USA forced the world to follow its prohibtion bandwagon circus, and is now again going to coerce other countries to once again do the same, this time with decriminalisation.

Always money is the motivation for their actions, not people or ethical considerations.

Word up dude

So...how are did they 'force' these countries into prohibition??

And what are they doing to 'coerce' the same countries into decriminalisation??

How does the USA benefit from NZ (for instance) doing ANYTHING?:blink:

Hinny

21st August 2010, 10:15

Pot Idol :shifty:

For all interested parties PM me for address to send entries.
Good prizes.:yes:

scissorhands

21st August 2010, 10:26

So...how are did they 'force' these countries into prohibition??

And what are they doing to 'coerce' the same countries into decriminalisation??

How does the USA benefit from NZ (for instance) doing ANYTHING?:blink:

India prohibited ganja in 1974 under pressure from the UN (USA), even though ganja is a big part of national history and lifestyle.

As far as coercion evidence goes, this stuff we never see............

How does the USA benefit by having our broadcasting channels disseminating pro USA propaganda?

Hinny

21st August 2010, 13:39

As far as coercion evidence goes, this stuff we never see............

DEA is a regular visitor to our shores to 'educate' Politicians and Police.

Why does the US want Drug Prohibition?
They wanted the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan when they started burning poppy fields and seized Opiates.
Put their 'Drug Lord' mates back in power.

Oliver North and the Contra scandal was a clear example of the way they may benefit from having drug prohibition.

scumdog

23rd August 2010, 06:45

A shitload of paranoia and conspiracy theories being bandied around in some of the above posts I feel.

I blame the overuse of dak by some of the posters....:shifty:

scissorhands

23rd August 2010, 09:49

A lot of blindly parroting media and Gment bullshit in the posts above.

I blame corruption of fair ethics, job protection and institutional discrimination against a perceived wrong and illegality, that will one day become legal, once again as it was before.

Mexicans and black musicians must stop raping white women! lol

mashman

23rd August 2010, 09:49

SMOKEU

23rd August 2010, 09:54

A shitload of paranoia and conspiracy theories being bandied around in some of the above posts I feel.

I blame the overuse of dak by some of the posters....:shifty:

The government is out to get us!

Hinny

23rd August 2010, 11:03

A shitload of paranoia and conspiracy theories being bandied around in some of the above posts I feel.

I blame the overuse of dak by some of the posters....:shifty:

Scummy, You would definitely be classed as a Rocker :beer:and not a Mod .:doobey:
Whatever keeps you happy.

Banditbandit

23rd August 2010, 11:14

Scummy, You would definitely be classed as a Rocker :beer:and not a Mod .:doobey:
Whatever keeps you happy.

Hmm ... if my memory serves me well ...

"Rockers" ... ride motorcycles .. another name (older name) for bikers ... isn't this a Biker Forum ?

And since when was a good smoke the sign of a Mod ? Bikers have been smoking longer than Mods have been around ..

scissorhands

23rd August 2010, 13:03

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/7805442/teens-turning-up-at-school-stoned-on-legal-party-pills/

sighhhhhhhh... so so stoopid

"Zoe Baird owner of Cactus Liquor in Whangarei, which sold the pills, with names such as Fuel, Avionic, Kaotic and Kinetic, said they claimed to mimic Class A drugs like ecstasy and speed, but made you feel wide awake.

The substances weren't mind altering, and didn't make you want to steal TVs or break into homes, but too many could make people ill."

"said they claimed to mimic Class A drugs like ecstasy and speed, but made you feel wide awake"... WTF!!! Ecstasy and Speed must make you feel drowsy :rofl: the ignorance is astonishing... but shows the incorrect perceptions that surround "social" drugs...

I know that every time I ever popped a mind bending Class A drug, I had an instant burning need to rush out and break into peoples houses for their TV's :blink:... If you were Eee'd of yer nut you'd never get past the stereo as you'd be compelled to pop on a tune :love:...

Come on NZ, let's have some sensible laws for a change and some REAL education instead of patronising a vast chunk of the population with propoganda and scare tactics to limit drug usage...

I tried to find quality educational drug videos on youtube but came up with average.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyXFN4ocN_o&feature=related

Is there any quality drug education? I found this quality piece Dope Tips 2 from nelson council: http://www.healthaction.org.nz/Dope_Tips_II.htm

If smoking, only inhale small breaths and avoid holding the smoke in your lungs!! everyone is doing it wrong!! (I now refuse bongs and large lungful utencils to avoid excessive broncial damage)

Ya see, prohibition prevents people from hearing these helpful recommendations, or any balanced advice....

mashman

23rd August 2010, 13:41

I tried to find educational drug videos on youtube but came up empty handed.

Is there any quality drug education? I found this quality piece Dope Tips 2 from nelson council: http://www.healthaction.org.nz/Dope_Tips_II.htm

If smoking, only inhale small breaths and avoid holding the smoke in your lungs!! everyone is doing it wrong!! (I now refuse bongs and large lungful utencils to avoid excessive broncial damage)

Ya see, prohibition prevents people from hearing these helpful recommendations, or any balanced advice....

she could do with a smoke :shifty: such a bad bad video... not tried Heroin, been offered a few times, but because I KNOW it can be an accidental killer it really doesn't float my boat... So my brain is an egg that's being pummelled to death by some bitch with a frying pan when taking Heroin... kinda surprised that anyone takes it on that EVIDENCE :)

True... for me the only quality drug education, as unpopular as people seem to think :shifty:, is that of actually doing it... not being press ganged into it, but actually gathering with the specific purpose of taking, feeling, analysing and talking about the effects... we're treating kids (read 14+) like kids and most are way beyond that... a byproduct being that whenever we tell them NO (some kids don't take NO well), they do the exact opposite... as far as i can tell maturity, experience and the odd law are about the only things that seperate a 14yr old from a 40yr old... and perhaps if you treat kids (14+) like adults and educate them PROPERLY, they'll make their own minds up based on FACTS and not urban legend (stealing TV's tsk)...

I doubt the numbers of "users" are dropping, so perhaps the best method of "containment" is FACT based education...

Edbear

25th August 2010, 10:44

I have received a reply from Judith Collins and have been informed that Tony Ryall will be sending me his response shortly.

I found it interesting that it's not a simple matter of enforcement, but a combination of enforcement and education, working with the various community services to address drug taking in NZ.

I'll look further into the overall picture of the "drug culture" and what the various Govt. departments are doing.

216949

Edbear

25th August 2010, 15:05

I tried to find quality educational drug videos on youtube but came up with average.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyXFN4ocN_o&feature=related

Is there any quality drug education? I found this quality piece Dope Tips 2 from nelson council: http://www.healthaction.org.nz/Dope_Tips_II.htm

If smoking, only inhale small breaths and avoid holding the smoke in your lungs!! everyone is doing it wrong!! (I now refuse bongs and large lungful utencils to avoid excessive broncial damage)

Ya see, prohibition prevents people from hearing these helpful recommendations, or any balanced advice....

Helpful recommendations? Smoking anything results in a high risk of several different forms of cancer, including lung, throat, mouth - along with other health issues such as Emphysema, Bronchial diseases, etc. There is no such thing as a safe way to smoke and recommending anyone to smoke anything is irresponsible.

Health-wise, Cannabis has no benefits unless there can be some found in medicine using substances in the plant which would be administered in a different manner and not adversely affecting the mind or body as does smoking it. Currently it is a recreational drug taken with the intent of reduced responsibility and as such is only ever going to harm the user, as with any recreational drug, including alcohol.

All you and your supporters are doing is seeking to justify using Cannabis as a recreational drug and to be able to do so without consequences.

scissorhands

25th August 2010, 16:19

Edbear

25th August 2010, 19:14

Smoking is harmful, and so is making children walk down rush hour roads, and wait in bus stops..... Below is Jesus embracing ethnobotanicals, or drugs as you say.

Regarding my Aspergers, clinicians at Autism NZ and my GP both think moderate cannabis selfmedication is better for me than drinking grog, being on medication, smoking cigarettes, eating crap, drinking lots of coffee.

They have both said this first hand to me.....

I guess Judith has a legal understanding and not a medical one. If I believed her I would be worse off health wise.

While I genuinely sympathise with you on your Asperger's, nothing you have just posted alters the truth of what I said above. The attachment is merely someone's fantasy.

You say that Cannabis is your preferred medication and you would rather the risks of smoking weed than the side effects of any "approved" drug. Alcohol would, I think, be one of the worst drugs for your illness, so no argument there.

Note that Judith's letter was the result of consultation with the Police and included the fact that the Police do not simply enforce the law, but work with all the relevant social services to address the problem in toto including education.

To compare smoking Cannabis with walking down streets and waiting at bus stops is demonstrating the same attitude as many use when defending views that are not fact based, but are prejudice based. The comparison is invalid if you were thinking open-mindedly and logically.

Hinny

25th August 2010, 22:11

Dispelling another myth.
Marijuana Does Not Impair Driving Ability

http://www.asylum.com/2010/06/02/university-of-iowa-marijuana-pot-herb-doesnt-impair-driving-ability/

scumdog

27th August 2010, 02:16

Dispelling another myth.
Marijuana Does Not Impair Driving Ability]

Yup, that's why pilots always toke-up big time before a flight....

Genie

27th August 2010, 06:25

Dispelling another myth.
Marijuana Does Not Impair Driving Ability

http://www.asylum.com/2010/06/02/university-of-iowa-marijuana-pot-herb-doesnt-impair-driving-ability/

yeah...it just slows you down and makes you parnoid. Then the munchies come along....maybe that's why this country has an increase in overweight people. They're all pot heads.

Personally, I've smoked pot since 15, always in moderation....have now ceased this habit. It's crap. Don't like how it makes me feel but it's taken close to 30 for me to work that one out. FFS, talk about slow. Maybe I've been too stoned to realise what I twat I'd been. I've seen some damage it's done to a young man's life recently and well....that hurts. My ex-husband was the same, one of the reasons he is my ex.

Anything that alters our state of reality can't be good, I know alcohol isn't....why do humans' feel the need to escape reality? It's not that bad, life is what you make, it is about your attitude, perhaps if we all could encourage one another a lot more and look at our own levels of self esteem the need to drugs would be eliminated. (Who am I kidding?)

If we all had a really good look at our lives we'd see how great we have it....that fact that we can see surely has to be a starting point for rejoicing, next point could be that hey, we can hear, then move, walk, eat...so much, yet we forget it.

Hinny

27th August 2010, 06:39

....that fact that we can see surely has to be a starting point for rejoicing, .
For some this is achieved by the use of marijuana.
One very good episode of 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' was when Larry went off to get some pot for his old man because he couldn't see. Very funny show.

Genie

27th August 2010, 07:03

For some this is achieved by the use of marijuana.
One very good episode of 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' was when Larry went off to get some pot for his old man because he couldn't see. Very funny show.

aha...I have heard that marijuana is useful in cases of glucama.....also for medicinal purposes in pain manangement and nausea. It does depend on how it is used. It is a very addictive substance. The social disadvantages in our youth and the ongoing affects in some peoples lives are from the point of view I now look at it.
I know of one man who started smoking at 15, was doing well at school, happy, outgoing, he is now 43, smoked everyday, never worked, nothing wrong with him bar his addiction to pot yet he has been on sickness beneift for over 20 years. He suffers from depression, drinks like a fish and has fathered 5 children to 5 different mothers. A real assest to society. Not blaming all this on pot but hey, he smokes at least ten joints a day. He only motivation in life is to grow more pot to sell and smoke. Awesome! Society needs more just like him!

oops, forgot to mention his violent history.....against his peers and his partner. But according to him, she deserves it because she doesn't shut up or do as she's told!!!!

scissorhands

27th August 2010, 13:32

aha...I have heard that marijuana is useful in cases of glucama.....also for medicinal purposes in pain manangement and nausea. It does depend on how it is used. It is a very addictive substance. The social disadvantages in our youth and the ongoing affects in some peoples lives are from the point of view I now look at it.
I know of one man who started smoking at 15, was doing well at school, happy, outgoing, he is now 43, smoked everyday, never worked, nothing wrong with him bar his addiction to pot yet he has been on sickness beneift for over 20 years. He suffers from depression, drinks like a fish and has fathered 5 children to 5 different mothers. A real assest to society. Not blaming all this on pot but hey, he smokes at least ten joints a day. He only motivation in life is to grow more pot to sell and smoke. Awesome! Society needs more just like him!

oops, forgot to mention his violent history.....against his peers and his partner. But according to him, she deserves it because she doesn't shut up or do as she's told!!!!

I am socially disadvantaged by being autistic. Cannabis helps with the difficulties I experience, difficult social conditions that will never change!!

So when I was bullied by my family (including mom and dad) as a kid, I learnt that the world is an unfair and hostile place, for intelligent people with little or no herding, conforming or neurotypical instincts.

Many of the nut jobs at the Daktory are just your average person, often of higher ethical value than your average citizen.... The westie component is relative to other suburban archetypes.

The clean living good folks out their who press their shirts and clean their cars and go to work all their lives, may sometimes be causing more harm on earth than your average stoner....

Nearly all the stoners I know are more intelligent and caring than most. Its a way to escape the hell hole of a cruel world

I always like the tone of your rhetoric Genie, its refreshing for me to know that some years of cannabis has contributed to the kindness that surround you, or maybe you took cannabis to escape too. I'm glad you have found a way without it, but question whether you should recommend removing that option for others.

I personally wouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water....

Ba ba black sheep have you any wool?
yes sir, yes sir, if only drongoes could

Hinny

31st August 2010, 13:56

Amusing interlude:

<object width="480" height="385">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5KYQj0-Is98?fs=1&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></object>

marie_speeds

1st September 2010, 12:41

Watched Cat in the Hat for the first time the other day and decided that one really needs to be stoned to watch it :blink:

Don't prohibit drugs, they are needed for watching movie's like this!

mashman

1st September 2010, 13:47

Don't prohibit drugs, they are needed for watching movie's like this!

LSD and watch The Doors movie... talented fella that Oliver Stone... anyhooo...

kinda shows how long i've "been out of the game"... I watched a programme on Discovery (Can I get High Legally?) last night about legal highs and did a little reading and watching today... fuckin hell that's scarey...

Why is Cannabis not legal if these things are? Honest question for those that have taken legal highs (not booze or cigs)... from what i've seen on youtube people get utterly mangled after a simple bong hit, something i've VERY VERY RARELY seen after a similar Cannabis blast...

how the fuck can that be a legal high (take a look at the effects of Salvia Divinorum on youtube)!!! The guy in the programme explains that MDMA is banned, as are several other drugs, but they are banned substances in regards to their chemical makeup. So, take an E, add an extra oxygen molecule and that E then becomes legal until they can ban the formula...

PROHIBITION WORKS MY HAIRY FAT ASS!!!!

Banditbandit

1st September 2010, 15:28

LSD and watch The Doors movie... talented fella that Oliver Stone... anyhooo...

Ya can't beat 2001 A Space Odyssey and Acid ... the first shots of the planets lining up is simply A f'ken Mazing - especially if you're in the front row of a true Cinerama Theatre ...

Edbear

25th September 2010, 20:31

I am socially disadvantaged by being autistic. Cannabis helps with the difficulties I experience, difficult social conditions that will never change!!

So when I was bullied by my family (including mom and dad) as a kid, I learnt that the world is an unfair and hostile place, for intelligent people with little or no herding, conforming or neurotypical instincts.

Many of the nut jobs at the Daktory are just your average person, often of higher ethical value than your average citizen.... The westie component is relative to other suburban archetypes.

The clean living good folks out their who press their shirts and clean their cars and go to work all their lives, may sometimes be causing more harm on earth than your average stoner....

Nearly all the stoners I know are more intelligent and caring than most. Its a way to escape the hell hole of a cruel world

I always like the tone of your rhetoric Genie, its refreshing for me to know that some years of cannabis has contributed to the kindness that surround you, or maybe you took cannabis to escape too. I'm glad you have found a way without it, but question whether you should recommend removing that option for others.

I personally wouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water....

Ba ba black sheep have you any wool?
yes sir, yes sir, if only drongoes could

Perhaps it's a good time for you to do some study as to why you feel it has a positive effect on your condition, find out what is in it that stimulates what you need Not being facetious, I'm serious.

Forest

26th September 2010, 00:53

Ya can't beat 2001 A Space Odyssey and Acid ... the first shots of the planets lining up is simply A f'ken Mazing - especially if you're in the front row of a true Cinerama Theatre ...

I haven't seen 2001 in Cinerama, but I did see it on a 70mm print at the St James theatre about twelve years ago.

I rather wish I'd been on Acid. The film is visually stunning, but unbelievably boring.

Hinny

26th September 2010, 08:56

Ya can't beat 2001 A Space Odyssey and Acid ... the first shots of the planets lining up is simply A f'ken Mazing - especially if you're in the front row of a true Cinerama Theatre ...

Trivia re. 2001
 · What is the significance of the opening shot of the aligned celestial bodies in the film?
The sun and the crescent moon aligned with each other was a symbol of Zoroastrianism, an ancient Persian religion that predated Buddhism and Christianity and was based on the teachings of the prophet Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra). This particular alignment symbolized the eternal struggle between light and darkness.

Cinerama.
Although released in Cinerama, [I]2001 was not shot with three cameras but with one camera on 70mm film with a special anamorphic lens to widen the image.

Boring.
Kubrick cut 19 minutes from the film’s original 158-minute running time after its New York premiere, mostly to speed up the pacing.

Hinny

26th September 2010, 10:14

Killer Marijuana.

<object width="480" height="385">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LcPF59CoGvs?fs=1&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></object>

scumdog

26th September 2010, 10:21

Trivia re. 2001

[/FONT]Boring.
Kubrick cut 19 minutes from the film’s original 158-minute running time after its New York premiere, mostly to speed up the pacing.

I wonder what HE was on??:blink:

Hinny

26th September 2010, 11:54

I wonder what HE was on??:blink:
Maybe he just did not have ADHD.

Banditbandit

27th September 2010, 11:05

I know of one man who started smoking at 15, was doing well at school, happy, outgoing, he is now 43, smoked everyday, never worked, nothing wrong with him bar his addiction to pot yet he has been on sickness beneift for over 20 years. He suffers from depression, drinks like a fish and has fathered 5 children to 5 different mothers. A real assest to society. Not blaming all this on pot but hey, he smokes at least ten joints a day. He only motivation in life is to grow more pot to sell and smoke. Awesome! Society needs more just like him!

The man's an addict - and I know a few like that who only use the legal drug alcohol - haven't smoke a joint in their lives ...

We don't ban alcohol because of a few people who use up oxygen for no good purpose ... why ban mary jane for the same reasons ? It's a people problem, not a drug problem ...

scumdog

27th September 2010, 11:27

The man's an addict - and I know a few like that who only use the legal drug alcohol - haven't smoke a joint in their lives ...

We don't ban alcohol because of a few people who use up oxygen for no good purpose ... why ban mary jane for the same reasons ? It's a people problem, not a drug problem ...

Wow, I'll give you an equally logical scenario...because of a 'people problem' the virtually banned AK47s too...and they did so based on the actions of ONE man..

Now THAT is really unjust eh!

Banditbandit

27th September 2010, 12:40

Wow, I'll give you an equally logical scenario...because of a 'people problem' the virtually banned AK47s too...and they did so based on the actions of ONE man..

Now THAT is really unjust eh!

Yeah ... I loved my AK47 ... (just kidding, only ever played with a mate's ... it was hell on Goats ...)

But I'm sorry ... I was living in Napier when Jan Molenaar did his thing ... banning military style automatics did not stop him and a lot of other crazies over the years ...

Banning Mary Jane, Cocaine, Heroin, LSD, Ectsasy, etc etc has created a bigger problem than the one it was supposed to solve .. just as banning alcohol in the USA did the same thing ...

scumdog

27th September 2010, 13:16

Banning Mary Jane, Cocaine, Heroin, LSD, Ectsasy, etc etc has created a bigger problem than the one it was supposed to solve .. just as banning alcohol in the USA did the same thing ...

I notice you haven't mentioned 'P' in your list, d'ya reckon if it was legalised we would have less problems with it??

Drunken Monkey

27th September 2010, 14:19

I notice you haven't mentioned 'P' in your list, d'ya reckon if it was legalised we would have less problems with it??

I would expect, given 'people problem' being true, that all it would do is move the problem (or at least where the problem people show up). In saying that, I don't think coming down harder on suppliers and users is going to have any net beneficial effect to our lives either.

So in regards to this scenario, the real question is something along the lines of "Should society lock up drug pushers and users in some form of institution, or should we find a different way to deal with them?".

I think the general consensus is 'locking them up' takes them off the street where they may otherwise interfere with your life in some anti-social way. Presently this is how many societies around the world try to deal with the 'drugs problem'. I'm not entirely convinced the argument is sound, nor that it is effective in all cases. I'm also not convinced that throwing more money at putting more people away (via increased targetted policing and more institutionalisation) is going to change anything. Given all this, if the 'answer' was easy, then I'm sure we'd have figured it out by now.

Given the wide range of personalities people have, there's never going to be a magic bullet solution. The pendulum will always swing between balancing having personal freedoms and living in a police state. Most ordinary people prefer the former, until they are wronged by another, then cry out for the latter. Good governance of a population as a whole should, IMHO, filter out the noise makers. Currently, the opposite is the case, and squeaky wheels get the most attention.

Banditbandit

27th September 2010, 15:05

I notice you haven't mentioned 'P' in your list, d'ya reckon if it was legalised we would have less problems with it??

Yes. No. I'm not sure about P ... The generalized stance, which is pretty close to my own, that drugs should be up to the individual and not a matter for the state to interfere in ... doesn't take into account the social harm around the use of some drugs - such as P. This is complicated by the fact of the social harm of currently legal drugs such as alcohol ... there is no easy quick answer ...

I'm still inclined to think that drugs should not be the provence of any government to interfere in people's lives ...

The use and misuse of drugs is a social problem and needs social solutions - that is NOT to say that fixing the social problems means we will not have addicts in the future ... that's a health problem ... but criminalizng users is not the answer to a social problem ... (making suicide illegal doesn't stop people trying and/or succeeding and telling a suicidal person that it is illegal won;t change their mind.) ...we can see where prohibition leads .. in the extreme examples of the US prohibition period and the crime lords ... and in New ZEaland the sale of drugs funds the criminal gangs ...

For something like marijuana, legalizing growth and possession up to an amount for personal use, but keeping the sale or supply illegal, would remove that particular drug from prohibtion - people could grow, dry and smoke their own and would not need to buy from the Mob or other gangs ... cuts off a large part of their funding and recruitment either to the gang or to other drugs ...

And the crime "associated" with drugs such as burglary, is about people trying to raise money to buy drugs from gangs .. if there was a legal way to grow or make drugs, that crime would largely disappear ... as it did in the US when prohibition was lifted ...

LSD, Heroin, Ecstacy, Opium could all be treated the same way ... none of these are harmful in themselves ... (people die from herion OVERDOSE or the crap used to cut it ... heroin in itself will not kill people) Yes, we do not want people flying aeroplanes, working as dentists, surgeons ... high on those - but we stop them flying or operating on alcohol already ... these are no different.

P is very very different ... and I'm not sure what the answer is .. I'm just bloody glad I've never used that one myself ...