Don Brash: "We should decriminalise marijuana" [Archive] - Page 2

Edbear

29th September 2011, 20:52

If that's the line you want to draw, then yes, fuck the lot of them...

To that end I am living proof that I'm not

A) Fucked in the head (you may disagree :shifty:)
B) Riddled with Cancer
C) Suffering from memory loss
D) Suffering from paranoia
E) Dead (hence the living proof)
F) Schiz
G) One-eyed
H) Suffering from any side effects of Marijuana
I) Addicted to anything (ok tobacco)
J) Suffering from any drug disorder

Now that either makes me a walking miracle, or someone is wrong somewhere.

Is there anything else that you'd like to tell me that I'm supposed to have because of my Cannabis use?

If you really want to know whether you are addicted to anything, stop taking it for 6wks. Only during that time will you find out for yourself whether you are experiencing any side effects from its use.

Tell me, why do people smoke knowing the risks? Why do people engage in harmful or known harmful practices knowing the probable consequences?

For excample, it is well proven that smoking is carcinogenic, yet people smoke in the face of it.

In so many cases, as also the case with young boy racers, it is only when the proverbial hits the spinning blades and the chickens come home to roost that we hear the cry, "Ïf only I hadn't...", Ïf only I'd listened.." Regret, it seems is far preferable to prevention and intelligent reasoned choices.

Not until you are diagnosed with cancer, (lung, throat, mouth,etc.) emphysema or suffer the bad consequences of your choices, will you listen to anyone who disagrees with you, qualified or not.

In the meantime, you will protest, even while admitting you haven't studied the subject of know much about it, and will decry anyone who tries to educate you, or present evidence contrary to your preferences. This includes shooting the messenger.

I know from experience I am wasting my time trying to convince users of anything they don't want to know, so excuse me from the thread and I'll bow out gracefully.

husaberg

29th September 2011, 20:53

Currently I don't. Kinda proves that I don't have an addiction to the stuff

Define currently please this minute, this hour, this day, this week, this month, this year,This decade?

Ps what you say proves nothing its pretty easy for you to say on a computer that you are Nandor Tanzos. How could anyone prove otherwise. For all we know you are high now.

Mashman is currently enjoying a toke, he will be back later, not that hes addicted or anything its his choice after all. Plus it never did him any harm after all. His drug use is not his problem its ours. You will see I put a little extra in your dole cheque this week. Party down Dude.

mashman

29th September 2011, 21:25

If you really want to know whether you are addicted to anything, stop taking it for 6wks. Only during that time will you find out for yourself whether you are experiencing any side effects from its use.

Tell me, why do people smoke knowing the risks? Why do people engage in harmful or known harmful practices knowing the probable consequences?

For excample, it is well proven that smoking is carcinogenic, yet people smoke in the face of it.

In so many cases, as also the case with young boy racers, it is only when the proverbial hits the spinning blades and the chickens come home to roost that we hear the cry, "Ïf only I hadn't...", Ïf only I'd listened.." Regret, it seems is far preferable to prevention and intelligent reasoned choices.

Not until you are diagnosed with cancer, (lung, throat, mouth,etc.) emphysema or suffer the bad consequences of your choices, will you listen to anyone who disagrees with you, qualified or not.

In the meantime, you will protest, even while admitting you haven't studied the subject of know much about it, and will decry anyone who tries to educate you, or present evidence contrary to your preferences. This includes shooting the messenger.

I know from experience I am wasting my time trying to convince users of anything they don't want to know, so excuse me from the thread and I'll bow out gracefully.

I'm at at least 6 weeks.

Why do people ride motorcycles and don't all drive cars? Enjoyment. Same reason people eat saturated fats. Same reason people drink and develop beer bellies. Same reason people don't have sex for procreation purposes.

It is well known that fat makes you fat (or that growth hormone can be passed to humans from animals, or pesticides from vegetables for that matter). And yet we repeatedly eat the stuff.

I don't necessarily disagree with that point. If only I hadn't been at that intersection at that point in time. (hope you're healing well Ed). Life is full of regrets and surprises... none of us can predict the future. By all means mitigate it as best you wish, but don't expect everyone to do the same. It doesn't make the choice any less reasoned, it just makes it different to your choice.

I disagree :rofl:... I make my own mind up based on what I know and how I feel about it at the time. Irrespective of how you may feel about my choice, it is mine to make given the knowledge and experience that I have. Same goes for every substance that I put in my body.

I'm sorry you see it that way. As mentioned already, I fully understand the consequences of ALL of my actions... and I get more benefit out of smoking marijuana than I do from not smoking it... and if that flies in the face of your studies, then I'd say you have your answer and refuse to look any further.

Mate really? You drew a line and I crossed it... tis an self-accepted trait that I have. If you convince/educate anyone to stop "polluting" their bodies, then I won't try to convince them otherwise... after all it's their decision based on what they know. But trying to ram research down peoples throats, when they already know the risks, and then wagging a finger because you disapprove, when there is research that says the complete opposite (see scissorhands thread linked to a few pages back, medical research in there too) doesn't make me ignore your view any more than theirs. I may have that final regret some day, I may not. I'm not ignoring your advice/expertise, I'm merely living my life the way I see fit armed with what I know.

Having lived amongst soft drug users for several years, potentially a decade or so, and knowing plenty of long term marijuana users, I have lost 1 dear friend... most of the rest have gone on to have very successful careers, some have stayed as "bums". Your research does not stack up with my observations. I am sorry that that disappoints you.

mashman

29th September 2011, 21:30

Define currently please this minute, this hour, this day, this week, this month, this year,This decade?

Ps what you say proves nothing its pretty easy for you to say on a computer that you are Nandor Tanzos. How could anyone prove otherwise. For all we know you are high now.

Mashman is currently enjoying a toke, he will be back later, not that hes addicted or anything its his choice after all. Plus it never did him any harm after all. His drug use is not his problem its ours. You will see I put a little extra in your dole cheque this week. Party down Dude.

:rofl: bring any drug kit you like... If I had known I was gonna be scrutinised, I'da saved my pee from the last X amount of weeks (X coz I know it's been 7 or 8 weeks, but haven't been keeping track, because it really isn't that important). And I haven't turned to any other substance as a substitute either, not even the evil drink.

husaberg

29th September 2011, 21:37

:rofl: bring any drug kit you like... If I had known I was gonna be scrutinised, I'da saved my pee from the last X amount of weeks (X coz I know it's been 7 or 8 weeks, but haven't been keeping track, because it really isn't that important). And I haven't turned to any other substance as a substitute either, not even the evil drink.

Oh shit sorry 8 weeks and poor short term memory as well well done.

ps your last post said 6 weeks Thats the problem with lies you need to get your story straight to stay straight
you get scrutinized because you can't fess up to your drug problem BTW

mashman

29th September 2011, 21:42

Oh shit sorry 8 weeks and poor short term memory as well well done.

ps your last post said 6 weeks Thats the problem with lies you need to get your story straight to stay straight
you get scrutinized because you can't fess up to your drug problem BTW

:rofl: ... I'm not marking it off on a calendar, as I don't see that not having had a "smoke" in 7/8 weeks is an achievement. But I highly doubt that you'll understand that. According to you, and me having taken drugs, I'd have to be craving a "smoke".

PS... could be 9 or 10 weeks. (and my last post said at least 6 weeks)... I hope you're not a lawyer, because you aren't a good one.

husaberg

29th September 2011, 22:08

:rofl: ... I'm not marking it off on a calendar, as I don't see that not having had a "smoke" in 7/8 weeks is an achievement. But I highly doubt that you'll understand that. According to you, and me having taken drugs, I'd have to be craving a "smoke".

PS... could be 9 or 10 weeks. (and my last post said at least 6 weeks)... I hope you're not a lawyer, because you aren't a good one.

Short term memory failing you.
I still seem to get smug idiots like you off charges every week so I can't be that bad at it.
As far as Crimes go you are hardly what I would call world class. I won't be swapping you dole cheque for my salary in the near future mate.
But thats your problem Not that you have any problems aye.
I could get you off most charges Diminished capacity.

Berries

29th September 2011, 22:11

If you guys who smoke dope or who support the decriminalizing it are such a majority as you claim to be it shouldn't be a problem to vote for a party that supports a change and win with a landslide.
Can't be arsed.

scissorhands

29th September 2011, 22:12

I was going to be rational and precise, due to all the error posted, but why should I bother?

At least the site gets little traffic and bikers reputations will stay as they are, whatever that is.

Actually I remember from the Bikoi that bikers are popular with the NZ public.:facepalm:

I spent an hour writing a beautiful post, but the aggravation just aint worth it...

hasta la vista babies! welcome to hell bitches!:bye:

blackdog

29th September 2011, 22:14

I hope you're not a lawyer, because you aren't a good one.

My guess when he said he worked in the courts was cleaner. His grasp of the English language (or lack thereof) would certainly put him no further up the food chain than bailiff.

That would explain his one eyed view on the topic at hand having only ever seen the minority of smokers that appear in the courts, nine out of ten of whom have far more serious underlying issues than pot smoking contributing to their circumstances.

husaberg

29th September 2011, 22:15

Can't be arsed.

Apathy? You have to love that.

xen

29th September 2011, 22:17

Just watched the Joe Rogan podcast (http://www.ustream.tv/joerogan) with guest Graham Hancock who said:

"When the state sends us to prison for essentially exploring our own consciousness, this is a grotesque abuse of our human rights. It's a fundamental wrong. If I as an adult am not sovereign over my own consciousness then I am absolutely not sovereign over anything. I can't claim any kind of freedom at all.

And what's happened over the last 40 or 50 years under the disguise of the War of Drugs, is that we've been persuaded to hand over the keys of our consiousness to the state. The most precious, the most intimate, the most sapien part of ourselves: the state now has the keys. And furthermore, they've been persuaded us to believe that it's in our best interests. This is a very dangerous situation. "

Sums it up pretty well I think.

husaberg

29th September 2011, 22:25

My guess when he said he worked in the courts was cleaner. His grasp of the English language (or lack thereof) would certainly put him no further up the food chain than bailiff.

That would explain his one eyed view on the topic at hand having only ever seen the minority of smokers that appear in the courts, nine out of ten of whom have far more serious underlying issues than pot smoking contributing to their circumstances.

Where as you say one eyed. I say Jaded. I suppose it is just an amazing co incidence that 70 per cent of the petty criminals I have to deal with are Dope users. An amazing co incidence.

Ps So what if my English and grammar offends you. Guess what I don't prepare my own briefs so don't worry. My English teacher was a little scathing of it as well. She also said I argued too much. My occupation was her Idea. Maybe I should have just smoked dope and then I could have gone onto the dole like you. Then I could have just lived in denial like you guys. Husaberg has had enough. It would seem some people need to live with distorted reality. I guess its how they cope with how their life has turned out. Smoke up boys, I would like a new car this year.

blackdog

29th September 2011, 22:44

Why one eyed as you say .I say Jaded I suppose it is just a amazing co incidence that 70 per cent of the petty criminal I have to deal with are Dope users. An amazing co incidence.

Ps if my English offends you guess what I don't prepare my own briefs so don't worry.My English teacher was a little scathing of it as well.She also said I argued too Much My occupation was her Idea. Maybe I should have just smoked dope and then I could have gone onto the dole like you.

I have no doubt whatsover that your wife washes and irons your briefs. I will not be discussing this with you any further because you are yet to make any statement or argument here rationally, and are obviously happy to make wildly inaccurate statements about people you have never met nor know anything about.

No lawyer that I have met would ever make the defamatory statements you have on a public forum. It appears that you can be completely deluded without drugs now doesn't it.

husaberg

29th September 2011, 22:51

I have no doubt whatsover that your wife washes and irons you briefs. I will not be discussing this with you any further because you are yet to make any statement or argument here rationally, and are obviously happy to make wildly inaccurate statements about people you have never met nor know anything about.

No lawyer that I have met would ever make the defamatory statements you have on a public forum. It appears that you can be completely deluded without drugs now doesn't it.

Barrister thank you. Have you even bothered to look at the stats I have posted. Oh well best ignore them as it doesn't suit your argument. PS you just stereotyped Lawyers. Something I have been accused of doing with drug users.That hurts.

mashman

29th September 2011, 22:52

mashman

29th September 2011, 22:57

Short term memory failing you.
I still seem to get smug idiots like you off charges every week so I can't be that bad at it.
As far as Crimes go you are hardly what I would call world class. I won't be swapping you dole cheque for my salary in the near future mate.
But thats your problem Not that you have any problems aye.
I could get you off most charges Diminished capacity.

I'm not the one who has trouble remembering what I posted and what was written in response to my questions.
Then getting smug idiots off makes you a hypocrite too.
You can keep your blood money. I'd rather earn an honest living than lie for a living.
No problem.
So you would lie for me. Don't they call that perjury?

husaberg

29th September 2011, 23:04

I'm not the one who has trouble remembering what I posted and what was written in response to my questions.
Then getting smug idiots off makes you a hypocrite too.
You can keep your blood money. I'd rather earn an honest living than lie for a living.
No problem.
So you would lie for me. Don't they call that perjury?

Never lie I don't testify. The NZ legal system is an adversarial system. It is like most legal systems biased towards the defendant.Japan is a notable exception.
Just because some is found not guilty it doesn't necessary imply that they are innocent. Think about it. But don't expect me to reply because I have Had enough and I will not be voting Act. As they are to liberal.

mashman

29th September 2011, 23:16

Never lie I don't testify. The NZ legal system is an adversarial system. It is like most legal systems biased towards the defendant.Japan is a notable exception.
Just because some is found not guilty it doesn't necessary imply that they are innocent.

Biased towards the defendant. Surely if they get off, then justice has been served? Don't be bitter about it because you think you know better than the judge... :rofl:@not necessarily innocent even though they have been found to be innocent by the legal system. Healthy prejudice you have their.

Imagine how few of us dole dwellers you'd have to deal with if marijuana was decriminalised...

mashman

29th September 2011, 23:27

bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaa (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/10370646/cannabis-cases-threatened-by-surveillance-law-change/)... don't let the druggies go free, because they want to break the backbone of the cannabis industry... what a waste of time and money.

Clockwork

30th September 2011, 08:49

Ummmmm speeding is not a criminal offense. I have been convicted of speeding. I do not have a criminal record.
Speeding is against the law so is smoking Dope.

See, we can both split infinities.
Ummmm, isn't that the point of this little debate?
Yes this is the point but this debate is pointless because If you want dope decriminalized vote for it. If you don't vote for a party that doesn't support decriminalizing it. There are obviously some firmly intrenched ideals at stake here.

Personally I think there is a world of difference between something being illegal and something being a criminal offense, not least in the long term consequences for the offender.

Also, I didn't split infinities, I have been known to outrageously split the odd infinitive but not on that occasion.

The fact is I'm not a dope smoker but if I discovered that either of my adult children were smokers I would be far more concerned for the detrimental social consequences to themselves of their action than I would be for their health.

If you guys who smoke dope or who support the decriminalizing it are such a majority as you claim to be it shouldn't be a problem to vote for a party that supports a change and win with a landslide. Or at the least get enough signatures to force a referendum on the matter.

If only democracy were that simple, this is the first time DB has espoused any policy that I would support. Unfortunately we are unable to cast our one (OK two) votes issue by issue. I would suggest simply looking at he number of alleged users that there are more than enough people in NZ who are OK with it that in a referendum it could possibly be carried (I wonder why NORML or ALCP haven't tried this??)

The real reason mainstream parties tend to shy away from this issue is the fear of the reactionary responses such as yours, or they hold such reactionary attitudes or even they struggle with the hypocrisy of trying to admit that maybe they had been wrong all this time.

If cannabis was as good as every user says it is it would have been seized upon by drug companies who would have developed very effective painkillers from it. All those who support it are smokers who want to keep on smoking it.

Any talk of medicinal benefits is simply an attempt to justify using it as a recreational drug. Dope has been probably more thoroughly investigated than any other drug and the only supporters, are as I said, the ones smoking it for pleasure.

I think its already been said but I suspect the main reasons the drug companies aren't interested is that the active ingredient is already illegal and and it would be difficult to get a patent on a naturally occurring substance .

...
Note the deaths with positive toxicology for cannabis and yes Mashman the rates of HIV in Portugal have decreased remarkably in Portugal in drug users since decriminalization faster in fact than non drug users but there seems to be no figures for after 2006 and all the trends are heading up for crime and everything else so its not all rosy in decriminalize land.

I'm not sure what your point is with the first graph here but the second one appears to show that drug users are moving away from cocaine and opiates in favour of cannabis; and this is a bad thing?

Short term memory failing you.
I still seem to get smug idiots like you off charges every week so I can't be that bad at it.
As far as Crimes go you are hardly what I would call world class. I won't be swapping you dole cheque for my salary in the near future mate.
But thats your problem Not that you have any problems aye.
I could get you off most charges Diminished capacity.

So your are a Lawyer and you don't consider that there is a difference between illegal and criminal!!

Where as you say one eyed. I say Jaded. I suppose it is just an amazing co incidence that 70 per cent of the petty criminals I have to deal with are Dope users. An amazing co incidence.

Ps So what if my English and grammar offends you. Guess what I don't prepare my own briefs so don't worry. My English teacher was a little scathing of it as well. She also said I argued too much. My occupation was her Idea. Maybe I should have just smoked dope and then I could have gone onto the dole like you. Then I could have just lived in denial like you guys. Husaberg has had enough. It would seem some people need to live with distorted reality. I guess its how they cope with how their life has turned out. Smoke up boys, I would like a new car this year.

So now we get to the truth! If we decriminalized cannabis use it would adversely affect your income.

Edbear

30th September 2011, 08:59

scissorhands

30th September 2011, 09:30

Why are you on the dole?

Shouldn't you be at work?:scooter:

Edbear

30th September 2011, 09:37

Shouldn't you be at work?:scooter:

I run a business, I'm always at work. Seven days a week, doing whatever it takes to support my family.

If anyone NEEDS the dole, it's there for them, but if you are unemployed, your responsibility is to find work and that means finding A job, not being picky about what you do.

If you're not actively looking for work and doing what it takes to be accepted, eg. changing what you need to change about yourself that may be interferring with finding a job, then you are a bludger.

Selfish irresponsible people will never find a job, unselfish, responsible people will always find a job, and the truth is really that simple. You may not get the job you want, but you will be working and contributing to society rather than living off those who are working.

Edbear

30th September 2011, 09:38

PS. I've broken my back twice in the last 16mths and live on painkillers and a severe disability. What's wrong with you?

Clockwork

30th September 2011, 09:47

PS. I've broken my back twice in the last 16mths and live on painkillers and a severe disability. What's wrong with you?

In all seriousness now. Would you try THC if it were legal?

oneofsix

30th September 2011, 09:51

I run a business, I'm always at work. Seven days a week, doing whatever it takes to support my family.

If anyone NEEDS the dole, it's there for them, but if you are unemployed, your responsibility is to find work and that means finding A job, not being picky about what you do.

If you're not actively looking for work and doing what it takes to be accepted, eg. changing what you need to change about yourself that may be interferring with finding a job, then you are a bludger.

Selfish irresponsible people will never find a job, unselfish, responsible people will always find a job, and the truth is really that simple. You may not get the job you want, but you will be working and contributing to society rather than living off those who are working.

Generally I agree with you Edbear but having been supporting a daughter trying to find work for nearly a year and doing what she could to get a job it can be frustrating. Some posters seem to think that if you are looking then you will find a job tomorrow :drinkup:

to get back on subject Edbear and in part reply to Clockworks question. yours would be one of the situations that I would consider looking TCH as a pain killer alternative.

Edbear

30th September 2011, 10:06

In all seriousness now. Would you try THC if it were legal?

If it was an approved drug and prescribed by my GP of course I would, because it would not have the side effects of Cannabis as taken generally. As I said, it is recretional smokers who enjoy the effects who are the most vocal about it and who couldn't care less if it's bad for the health.

Generally I agree with you Edbear but having been supporting a daughter trying to find work for nearly a year and doing what she could to get a job it can be frustrating. Some posters seem to think that if you are looking then you will find a job tomorrow :drinkup:

to get back on subject Edbear and in part reply to Clockworks question. yours would be one of the situations that I would consider looking TCH as a pain killer alternative.

As I said, if you need it it is there for you and only you know your full circumstances. Having dependent children complicates things. I was turned down for a part time job as most employers wan shift work on a rostered basis and my health doesn't alow me to be that flexible.

Edbear

30th September 2011, 10:10

Generally I agree with you Edbear but having been supporting a daughter trying to find work for nearly a year and doing what she could to get a job it can be frustrating. Some posters seem to think that if you are looking then you will find a job tomorrow :drinkup:

to get back on subject Edbear and in part reply to Clockworks question. yours would be one of the situations that I would consider looking TCH as a pain killer alternative.

Oh, PS. You have said you've been looking for work that would allow you to care for your daughter and that may not be easy to find. You are not what I'd class as a bludger.

Bludgers are those who always seem to find an excuse as to why they can't find a job.

Clockwork

30th September 2011, 10:12

Oddly enough, if it were an approved medication it would completely invalidate work place (or road side) drug testing. I wonder if that's part of the objection to it from the authorities

scissorhands

30th September 2011, 10:15

$$$$$$$$$$$$patents$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

PS. I've broken my back twice in the last 16mths and live on painkillers and a severe disability. What's wrong with you?

Nothing, I'm retired and live off rents. I do quite a bit of volunteer work, like protesting unfair laws that criminalise kids with mental issues.

Criminalising them just makes them more of a problem to society than what they already are.

It should be a health issue.

Ed: What sort of painkilers? Opiates? Does that affect your judgement and driving and stuff?

Edbear

30th September 2011, 10:20

Oddly enough, if it were an approved medication it would completely invalidate work place (or road side) drug testing. I wonder if that's part of the objection to it from the authorities

Extracting the effective ingredient by a phamaceutical company and developing a painkiller from it is very different from smoking the weed for a high. It would do nothing at all to affect the legislation against Cannabis use.

oneofsix

30th September 2011, 10:21

Oddly enough, if it were an approved medication it would completely invalidate work place (or road side) drug testing. I wonder if that's part of the objection to it from the authorities

Not completely, with existing prescription drugs they still have to be with in the terms of the prescription, this would be the same. Other countries are already dealing with this issue.

Clockwork

30th September 2011, 10:25

Extracting the effective ingredient by a phamaceutical company and developing a painkiller from it is very different from smoking the weed for a high. It would do nothing at all to affect the legislation against Cannabis use.

Not completely, with existing prescription drugs they still have to be with in the terms of the prescription, this would be the same. Other countries are already dealing with this issue.

As far as I'm aware THC is the active ingredient but remains detectable long after its narcotic effects have worn off.

Do other countries deal with it?

superman

30th September 2011, 10:28

Oddly enough, if it were an approved medication it would completely invalidate work place (or road side) drug testing. I wonder if that's part of the objection to it from the authorities

I don't think that would be the case. Many medications have strict conditions that you don't drive after consumption.

Clockwork

30th September 2011, 10:31

I don't think that would be the case. Many medications have strict conditions that you don't drive after consumption.

Yeah, but for 3 months after consumption?

superman

30th September 2011, 10:41

Yeah, but for 3 months after consumption?

Aye? :blink:

"While under the influence"

imdying

30th September 2011, 10:45

I'm not sure where the problem is with people just wanting to enjoy getting high?

I like the tipsy feeling that comes with the odd drink, surely it would be hypocritical of me to begrudge pot smokers their chosen pleasure?

Clockwork

30th September 2011, 10:47

mashman

30th September 2011, 10:47

Why are you on the dole?

I'm not mate... I was playing along with husaberg...

Edbear

30th September 2011, 10:48

As far as I'm aware THC is the active ingredient but remains detectable long after its narcotic effects have worn off.

Do other countries deal with it?

I don't think that would be the case. Many medications have strict conditions that you don't drive after consumption.

Perhaps this is one of the issues facing drug companies as side effects or potential side effects are always listed and we should be aware of them and make choices according to what we think about the particular drug we are offered.

It is our responsibility to educate ourselves, make our choices and then be accountable for them. We each have the freedom to choose for ourselves what we do and say, but we also have the corresponding responsibilty to make unselfish choices that may adversely affect thos around us and to accept any consequences either good or bad, for the choices we do make.

Like it or not, we live in a mixed society and short of living alone on an island and providing everything for ourselves, we must accept the social responsibility that goes along with it.

Edbear

30th September 2011, 10:51

.... and is ignoring the "advice" of a pharmaceutical company or doctor an offense?

Driving under the influence is.... but as I understand it being able to detect it and being under the influence of it is not necessarily the same thing is it?

That's one of the difficulties with pulling people over and testing them. There aren't any clear giudlines as to how much of what drug, either illegal or legal, affects each person. The Alcohol legislation is an arbitrary average but it can be measured by testing equipment.

I'm not mate... I was playing along with husaberg...

Fairynuff!

superman

30th September 2011, 10:56

Perhaps this is one of the issues facing drug companies as side effects or potential side effects are always listed and we should be aware of them and make choices according to what we think about the particular drug we are offered.

It is our responsibility to educate ourselves, make our choices and then be accountable for them. We each have the freedom to choose for ourselves what we do and say, but we also have the corresponding responsibilty to make unselfish choices that may adversely affect thos around us and to accept any consequences either good or bad, for the choices we do make.

Like it or not, we live in a mixed society and short of living alone on an island and providing everything for ourselves, we must accept the social responsibility that goes along with it.

Exactly!

We shouldn't let the government stifle our freedom for personal choices that do not affect anyone but ourselves. Victimless crimes should not have enforcement. If we do cause problems for others we must face the consequences as you say.

Edbear

30th September 2011, 11:00

Oh, PS. You have said you've been looking for work that would allow you to care for your daughter and that may not be easy to find. You are not what I'd class as a bludger.

Bludgers are those who always seem to find an excuse as to why they can't find a job.

I think I misread your post. It is your daughter trying to find a job, not you? :facepalm:

I assume she's been as flexible as possible in the jobs she applies for? It's not so much a matter of what job you take on, it's more that if you are working at whatever you can find. Being in the workplace has a tendency to produce opportunites, and some that may not be obvious at first.

Sometimes lowering your standards can lead to improving your job in a short time even if you do something you may not like at first. Many people who started at McD's on low wages are now running their own businesses, either a franchise or something completely different. It's more about being inside rather than outside the workforce. I started off pumpimg gas.

scissorhands

30th September 2011, 11:04

Is it a sin before god to judge another person unfairly?:violin::violin:

Would an angry god do something about that?:angry::angry:

or would a loving god show mercy and understanding?:love::love:

judge not others, least you be judged....

superman

30th September 2011, 11:07

is it a sin before god to judge another person unfairly?:violin::violin:

Would an angry god do something about that?:angry::angry:

Or would a loving god show mercy and understanding?:love::love:

Judge not others, least you be judged....

dammit why!?!?!?!?!

Edbear

30th September 2011, 11:07

Exactly!

We shouldn't let the government stifle our freedom for personal choices that do not affect anyone but ourselves. Victimless crimes should not have enforcement. If we do cause problems for others we must face the consequences as you say.

Therein lies one of the issues. As with so many "personal" choices, claims we are "not hurting anyone else" are in fact untrue. What we do and say, always affects someone else for either good or bad, and we have to decide how selfish we wish to be in pursuing our desires.

Very few, it seems are willing to show restraint for the common good, rather insisting on "their rights" to do as they please and everyone else can suck eggs.

Whether one agrees or not, the law is the law as decided in a democtratic society and we are, as citizens of said society, bound by them. Rebell and you get punished.

Edbear

30th September 2011, 11:09

dammit why!?!?!?!?!

Karma and you reap what you sow.

superman

30th September 2011, 11:22

Therein lies one of the issues. As with so many "personal" choices, claims we are "not hurting anyone else" are in fact untrue. What we do and say, always affects someone else for either good or bad, and we have to decide how selfish we wish to be in pursuing our desires.

Very few, it seems are willing to show restraint for the common good, rather insisting on "their rights" to do as they please and everyone else can suck eggs.

Whether one agrees or not, the law is the law as decided in a democtratic society and we are, as citizens of said society, bound by them. Rebell and you get punished.

Marijuana enjoyed responsibly as with alcohol does not affect others negatively. The reason it was outlawed in the first place was so a rope makers would't lose all their money to a plant which can be used for paper/rope etc and is extremely efficient at growing rapidly. Even now you must apply for a license to grow THC free cannabis... :facepalm:

We won't get punished if the people in the society want the law changed. The poll on stuff has over 75% for the decriminilizing of marijuana.

scissorhands

30th September 2011, 12:35

Cops Accused Of Eating Man's Pot Brownies, Bragging About It
By Simon McCormack, The Huffington Post - Tuesday, September 27 2011

Two Houston police officers could be asking "dude, where's my credibility?" after a suspect accused them of eating his pot brownies.

Nicholas Hill, 19, claims that Houston cops took his brownies, that they knew were laced with marijuana, and munched away after arresting the teen for pot possession.

ABC 13 found something more substantial than just Hill's claim. The station reports that it has obtained messages typed by the officers on their in-car computers after confiscating and consuming the baked goods.

"So HIGH... Good munchies," one officer supposedly wrote. "Everything should be open when we get done," the other responded.

One of Hill's defense attorneys, Daniel Cahill, told The Huffington Post that, if his client's accusations prove to be true, they could have very serious consequences.

"If what is alleged is true then it really calls into question everything that went on that day," Cahill said. "If we have police destroying evidence or maybe not following the rules that they need to be following, that brings into question the integrity of the system and everything these guys have done, possibly."

Houston Police Department spokesperson John Cannon told HuffPost that the department would not speculate on what penalties the officers would face if the accusations are found to be accurate.

"HPD is looking into the matter and will conduct a thorough investigation," Cannon said.

The officers remain on active duty while the investigation takes place, according to Cannon.
Advertisement

Cahill said that, until the investigation is finished, it's unclear what will happen with his client's case.

"We're waiting on the investigation before we can really move," he said. "We're stuck in a holding pattern."

oneofsix

30th September 2011, 12:45

Marijuana enjoyed responsibly as with alcohol does not affect others negatively. The reason it was outlawed in the first place was so a rope makers would't lose all their money to a plant which can be used for paper/rope etc and is extremely efficient at growing rapidly. Even now you must apply for a license to grow THC free cannabis... :facepalm:

We won't get punished if the people in the society want the law changed. The poll on stuff has over 75% for the decriminilizing of marijuana.

Rope making grew up on hemp (marijuana). I thought it was the southern cotton growers. Their product was in decline and hemp was seen as a competitor. The hippie generation were wearing hemp clothing.
Also its use (the reefer) was seen as spreading from the black musicians to the white kids causing them to drop out and become hippies. Whilst it was only the underclass using it it was tolerated.

MisterD

30th September 2011, 12:52

Where I do disagree is the claim, and again it is made by mainly recreational users, that Cannabis is relatively harmless.

Ed, this is the Lancet* Drug Harm Index...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42718000/gif/_42718419_drugs_graph2_416.gif

*You know, the leading medical journal in the world...

Deano

30th September 2011, 12:56

oneofsix

30th September 2011, 13:03

I thought solvents and ecstacy would rate higher than pot.

I don't know of anyone admitted to hospital from smoking a doobie - unless they were asthmatic or fell over and hurt themselves.

I've seen a doco on tv about solvent abuse - total brain melt down after a few years.

And some people can't handle their e either.

BUT - look where out friend alcohol sits.

careful Deano. First you reason there is something suspect about the graph then you point to it.
I also note a step in the graph when you get to Cannabis.
There has been a lot a research on alcohol and on tobacco but the illegal drugs, whilst there has been some research, it has not been as exhaustive and people reporting to Hospital are more likely to blame other factors. Also the Lancet being British with the British suffer the same poor record with alcohol as ourselves.
Another question, is the alcohol harm just direct harm, I suspect not, or does it include car accidents, tripping over when drunk etc?

MisterD

30th September 2011, 13:12

Another question, is the alcohol harm just direct harm, I suspect not, or does it include car accidents, tripping over when drunk etc?

It includes harm to the user and to society, so with alchol it will include wives beaten senseless by drunk husbands* as well as deaths of posh school kids who raid their parent liquor cabinets...

I think the Euro 2000 footbal tournament has been mentioned previously, but the difference in the behaviour of English fans in Belgium on the beer and Amsterdam on the toke was as stark an example as you could wish for.

*and vice versa.

oneofsix

30th September 2011, 13:37

It includes harm to the user and to society, so with alchol it will include wives beaten senseless by drunk husbands* as well as deaths of posh school kids who raid their parent liquor cabinets...

I think the Euro 2000 footbal tournament has been mentioned previously, but the difference in the behaviour of English fans in Belgium on the beer and Amsterdam on the toke was as stark an example as you could wish for.

*and vice versa.

That also goes some way to explaining the step in the graph. Once the substance 'below the step' become 'acceptable' (or legal if you prefer) then you will see an increase in their rate of harm. Except there should already be data from the Netherlands to compare alcohol with cannabis and they have a different drinking culture. Now that would be interesting.

mashman

30th September 2011, 14:37

You may not get the job you want, but you will be working and contributing to society rather than living off those who are working

The next time I'm unemployed, this will be my scenario (as it was 6 or so months ago)... I need to get the job I need, not want, so that I can afford to not lose the family home and the family life savings, and choosing to take just any job in the meantime will cut down on the time I have available to upskill and make myself more available in my chosen field... I will also be taking a job away from another member of society, even though I have every intention of leaving the temporary job for a better paid one, as soon as it become available.

Is taking a potentially long term job away from someone else, for my own short term gain, more beneficial to society than my waiting until I can get the job I need? Wouldn't that be considered selfish and extremely rude to the employer? Or would you consider me being lazy?

Therein lies one of the issues. As with so many "personal" choices, claims we are "not hurting anyone else" are in fact untrue. What we do and say, always affects someone else for either good or bad, and we have to decide how selfish we wish to be in pursuing our desires.

Untrue? Do you really believe that most/all/a few people change so radically, under the influence of marijuana, that their behaviour, judgement and general standards in regards to how they interact with others varies so widely from the person they are without marijuana in their system?

Mad-V2

30th September 2011, 14:41

Therein lies one of the issues. As with so many "personal" choices, claims we are "not hurting anyone else" are in fact untrue. What we do and say, always affects someone else for either good or bad, and we have to decide how selfish we wish to be in pursuing our desires.

Very few, it seems are willing to show restraint for the common good, rather insisting on "their rights" to do as they please and everyone else can suck eggs.

Whether one agrees or not, the law is the law as decided in a democtratic society and we are, as citizens of said society, bound by them. Rebell and you get punished.

Well I'll leave it to you to be ruled by the almighty LAW. As for me, I'm gonna continue to live a life of risk taking as I'm here only once, for a small amount of time and I'm making the most of it regardless of what you think.
Over the years I have drunk too much, gone too fast, jumped from planes/bridges, tried as many different AB and C classed drugs that came my way and generally lived a very full life with no regret, I like to experience all that this Earth has to offer.
BUT I have Never had a hand out from the government or society, I have a full time job that I've had now for 15 years, a happy family that are feed, clothed and kept warm, and I'm in very good health.
According to you I should be dead already or in jail, and all people around me should hate me for being so selfish and irresponsible
Funnily enough the only people who would hate me are the people ruled by Law or religion (I think it's a jealousy thing).

Edbear

30th September 2011, 14:53

Ed, this is the Lancet* Drug Harm Index...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42718000/gif/_42718419_drugs_graph2_416.gif

*You know, the leading medical journal in the world...

It's a holistic view of course and takes into account the fact that many abuse the substances. My point is about physical effects, and alcohol per se is not generally harmful if consumed within limits. Smoking, whatever you smoke, is inherently harmful and Cannabis is never benign in any amount.

Personally, I restrict myself on anything that diminishes my mental clarity, as I do not enjoy the feeling of not being in full control of my faculties. Some medicines are necessary and I have to put up with some side effects, but there is never an argument that nothing else can do what Cannabis does forn pain relief, and even the users on here admith that that is not their reason for taking it. They enjoy the mind altering and emotional effects of it and are quite prepared to break the law to get their jollies.

It includes harm to the user and to society, so with alchol it will include wives beaten senseless by drunk husbands* as well as deaths of posh school kids who raid their parent liquor cabinets...

I think the Euro 2000 footbal tournament has been mentioned previously, but the difference in the behaviour of English fans in Belgium on the beer and Amsterdam on the toke was as stark an example as you could wish for.

*and vice versa.

See above.

The next time I'm unemployed, this will be my scenario (as it was 6 or so months ago)... I need to get the job I need, not want, so that I can afford to not lose the family home and the family life savings, and choosing to take just any job in the meantime will cut down on the time I have available to upskill and make myself more available in my chosen field... I will also be taking a job away from another member of society, even though I have every intention of leaving the temporary job for a better paid one, as soon as it become available.

Is taking a potentially long term job away from someone else, for my own short term gain, more beneficial to society than my waiting until I can get the job I need? Wouldn't that be considered selfish and extremely rude to the employer? Or would you consider me being lazy?

If you are honest with your employer from the beginning there wil be no issues come time to leave your employment as that would be the understanding between you. YEs, it may mean some would not take you on in due to the potential temporary nature of your plans, but as I said, if you are actively seeking work and being as flexible and responsible as your circumstances allow you cannot be called a dole bludger.

Untrue? Do you really believe that most/all/a few people change so radically, under the influence of marijuana, that their behaviour, judgement and general standards in regards to how they interact with others varies so widely from the person they are without marijuana in their system?

See my response to MrD.

mashman

30th September 2011, 14:57

Ridiculous... triple his sentence and waste more tax payers money (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/10375055/court-almost-triples-drug-sentence/)... where he could be selling the stuff and paying tax... is reefer madness ever going to end...

Edbear

30th September 2011, 15:01

Well I'll leave it to you to be ruled by the almighty LAW. As for me, I'm gonna continue to live a life of risk taking as I'm here only once, for a small amount of time and I'm making the most of it regardless of what you think.
Over the years I have drunk too much, gone too fast, jumped from planes/bridges, tried as many different AB and C classed drugs that came my way and generally lived a very full life with no regret, I like to experience all that this Earth has to offer.
BUT I have Never had a hand out from the government or society, I have a full time job that I've had now for 15 years, a happy family that are feed, clothed and kept warm, and I'm in very good health.According to you I should be dead already or in jail, and all people around me should hate me for being so selfish and irresponsible
Funnily enough the only people who would hate me are the people ruled by Law or religion (I think it's a jealousy thing).

A key point! Obviously you do in fact limit yourself and if you truly take this kind of care for your family, you are not a selfish person, nor irresponsible.

Trying something out of curiosity is one thing - living on it despite knowing the risks and without regard to others is another thing altogether. It sounds like you are generally a hard working individual who accepts his repsonsibilities. I may not agree that one should try everything, and while accepting and fully understanding from personal experience how fragile our lives are, I also try to live responsibly and with regard for my family and fellow man.

I have made and will continue to make personal sacrifices for my wife and children and recognise my life would be very different if I was not married. However, I made a commitment to my wife for life, and she will always come before me, I mean her interests will always come ahead of mine.. Oh, you know what I mean... :facepalm:

mashman

30th September 2011, 15:12

Personally, I restrict myself on anything that diminishes my mental clarity, as I do not enjoy the feeling of not being in full control of my faculties. Some medicines are necessary and I have to put up with some side effects, but there is never an argument that nothing else can do what Cannabis does forn pain relief, and even the users on here admith that that is not their reason for taking it. They enjoy the mind altering and emotional effects of it and are quite prepared to break the law to get their jollies.

Some medicines are necessary... smacks of double standards plain and simple. I break the law to manage my sleep, my weight, my "irritability" and I enjoy the side effect of getting a minor high and suffer no other side effects. Why can't I medicate myself my way Ed? I'm not talking about living on it.

Sleeping pills haven't worked and I haven't used them since I found that they got me high instead of putting me to sleep. Don't believe me, try it for yourself.

Edbear

30th September 2011, 15:41

Some medicines are necessary... smacks of double standards plain and simple. I break the law to manage my sleep, my weight, my "irritability" and I enjoy the side effect of getting a minor high and suffer no other side effects. Why can't I medicate myself my way Ed? I'm not talking about living on it.

Sleeping pills haven't worked and I haven't used them since I found that they got me high instead of putting me to sleep. Don't believe me, try it for yourself.

I tried sleeping pills a long time ago and would never use them again, nor would I recommend them.

You can do what you want, but you have to accept anything that occurs because you are breaking the law. I doubt there is nothing else that will do what you want, and it is no doubt the enjoyment that keeps you using it.

One point you should be aware of is that like tobacco, the product causes the irritability you smoke it for. Höw often have you heard someone say, "Ï need a smoke to calm the nerves!"

I trained myself to cope with sleeplessness by using mental controls, but if one can't sleep, the worst thing to do is worry about it.

No double standards at all in saying some medicines are necessary, that is simply a matter of fact. Without certain drugs, I would not be able to function.

My issue is not with drugs or alcohol, per se, it is with people who claim they have to break the law to enjoy their highs as they do not have anything else. I also disagree with those who take known harmful substances then expect the medical profession to treat them on the public purse when they get cancer or other consequences. If you get cancer from smoking what will you do?

blackdog

30th September 2011, 15:46

This has truly been a thread that goes round in circles. What is plainly obvious is there are two sides to every argument.

In the pro corner are smokers that think they should be allowed to smoke the same as drinkers are allowed to drink. I think we have established that smoking (to excess) has at worst a less detrimental effect on society than drinking (to excess) has. This is both in terms of damage to the user, and a drain on society.

In the con corner are those that have no idea of the actual effects because they have never experienced actually smoking. They merely point out the negative effects on society that are actually caused by it being illegal. If decriminalised it immediately takes away the criminal element. No more gang involvement, no more guns to protect crops, no more money going back into the hands of those that are an actual danger to society.

What gets me is the 'holier than thou' attitudes of those that purport to being experts after reading something or other on the internet without actually having experience from both sides of the fence.

By decriminalising weed we immediately cut off those who are truly a threat. The gangs, the big time dealers, and the genetically wired cunts who use the sales of cannabis to subsidise their penchant for raping your daughters and investing in other gunrunning and P manufacturing enterprises.

To be fair I'm sick of the preachers in this thread, you know who you are. You are like fucking Jehovahs Witnesses. Knocking on my door telling me that if I follow your example I will be saved from the evil inside me.

I call bullshit.

I am not a pot smoker right now by the way. I have enjoyed it in the past, and who knows if I feel like it in the future I will have no problems enjoying it again. I have however had problems with alcohol in the past, and that almost destroyed me in a way pot never could.

MisterD

30th September 2011, 15:49

My issue is not with drugs or alcohol, per se, it is with people who claim they have to break the law to enjoy their highs as they do not have anything else. I also disagree with those who take known harmful substances then expect the medical profession to treat them on the public purse when they get cancer or other consequences. If you get cancer from smoking what will you do?

That's not the argument Ed. The argument is that given the undisputed facts of the cost of current enforcement policy and its lack of effectiveness, shouldn't we try something different? Decriminalise possession for personal use, retain prohibition on manufacture and supply and threfore allow us to focus more resource on seriously harmful drugs.

Re-read your own words - cannabis should be treated as a <i>health</i> issue!

Edbear

30th September 2011, 15:58

This has truly been a thread that goes round in circles. What is plainly obvious is there are two sides to every argument.

In the pro corner are smokers that think they should be allowed to smoke the same as drinkers are allowed to drink. I think we have established that smoking (to excess) has at worst a less detrimental effect on society than drinking (to excess) has. This is both in terms of damage to the user, and a drain on society.

In the con corner are those that have no idea of the actual effects because they have never experienced actually smoking. They merely point out the negative effects on society that are actually caused by it being illegal. If decriminalised it immediately takes away the criminal element. No more gang involvement, no more guns to protect crops, no more money going back into the hands of those that are an actual danger to society.

What gets me is the 'holier than thou' attitudes of those that purport to being experts after reading something or other on the internet without actually having experience from both sides of the fence.

By decriminalising weed we immediately cut off those who are truly a threat. The gangs, the big time dealers, and the genetically wired cunts who use the sales of cannabis to subsidise their penchant for raping your daughters and investing in other gunrunning and P manufacturing enterprises.

To be fair I'm sick of the preachers in this thread, you know who you are. You are like fucking Jehovahs Witnesses. Knocking on my door telling me that if I follow your example I will be saved from the evil.

I call bullshit.

(from someone who doesn't smoke pot BTW)

Truly spoken by someone who does not do any study or research for himself. How many medical journals and articles have you read by qualified researchers? My own opinions are based upon research and personal experiences. I've been around a long time and experienced teh best and worst life can offer, short of actually dying.

You don't need to smoke weed or get drunk to know the effects. You don't need to crash to know it hurts. You don't need to drown to warn someone of the dangers.

All I have done is tell what the properly reasearched and published evidence is saying, and anyone can confirm it for themselves. If I what I post irritates anyone, tough! I call a spade a spade and don't tickle anyone's ears for their sakes. If you disagree with me, that's entirely your prerogative, but name calling and getting angry, demeans you and discredits you. It merely suggests you have no real argument you can support with reason or evidence and don't know what you are talking about.

mashman

30th September 2011, 16:00

I tried sleeping pills a long time ago and would never use them again, nor would I recommend them.

You can do what you want, but you have to accept anything that occurs because you are breaking the law. I doubt there is nothing else that will do what you want, and it is no doubt the enjoyment that keeps you using it.

One point you should be aware of is that like tobacco, the product causes the irritability you smoke it for. Höw often have you heard someone say, "Ï need a smoke to calm the nerves!"

I trained myself to cope with sleeplessness by using mental controls, but if one can't sleep, the worst thing to do is worry about it.

No double standards at all in saying some medicines are necessary, that is simply a matter of fact. Without certain drugs, I would not be able to function.

My issue is not with drugs or alcohol, per se, it is with people who claim they have to break the law to enjoy their highs as they do not have anything else. I also disagree with those who take known harmful substances then expect the medical profession to treat them on the public purse when they get cancer or other consequences. If you get cancer from smoking what will you do?

So my saying that I use it for a purpose other than getting high, when there are legal ways for me to get high (that I don't use), really means that I just want to get high. I can think of nothing constructive to say to such an ignorant viewpoint.

Those poor young children who have Cancer... perhaps they shouldn't have taken up smoking. My Gran (69) never smoked and dies from Cancer. My step mother (44) died from Cancer 20 years after giving up. My step Dad (63) died from Cancer last week, heavy smoker. My Great Gran died from natural causes (91) smoked and drank like a chimney and a fish. My Uncle (64) died earlier this year (Heart Attack) smoker, his wife (40ish) died of Cancer never smoked, My grandad (81) died a few years ago, natural causes, (hadn't smoked for 40 years). The Grandad I never met (42) didn't smoke (heart attack)... in fact the 3 "healthiest" members of my family died the youngest by quite some margin. My mum is still alive (hasn't smoked in 30 years), as is my dad (recently quit after 50ish years)...

It's a risk we all take. Some of us don't take that risk and still die from Cancer.

Edbear

30th September 2011, 16:05

That's not the argument Ed. The argument is that given the undisputed facts of the cost of current enforcement policy and its lack of effectiveness, shouldn't we try something different? Decriminalise possession for personal use, retain prohibition on manufacture and supply and threfore allow us to focus more resource on seriously harmful drugs.

Re-read your own words - cannabis should be treated as a <i>health</i> issue!

The problem with this is that in support of the desire to see it legalised, those who use it for pleasure try to claim it is harmless. Certainly the issue of legality is for the Government of the day to decide, but trying to claim that Cannabis use is both harmless and beneficial is never going to work.

If the Government does decide to legalise, or decriminalise it for personal use, that is what I would have to accept, just as I have to accept the speed limit, or WOF's or registration. My personal issue is with its health effects, not with the legality or otherwise of it and those who try to deny the effects for their own interests in contradiction to qualified medical research.

Edbear

30th September 2011, 16:10

So my saying that I use it for a purpose other than getting high, when there are legal ways for me to get high (that I don't use), really means that I just want to get high. I can think of nothing constructive to say to such an ignorant viewpoint.

Those poor young children who have Cancer... perhaps they shouldn't have taken up smoking. My Gran (69) never smoked and dies from Cancer. My step mother (44) died from Cancer 20 years after giving up. My step Dad (63) died from Cancer last week, heavy smoker. My Great Gran died from natural causes (91) smoked and drank like a chimney and a fish. My Uncle (64) died earlier this year (Heart Attack) smoker, his wife (40ish) died of Cancer never smoked, My grandad (81) died a few years ago, natural causes, (hadn't smoked for 40 years). The Grandad I never met (42) didn't smoke (heart attack)... in fact the 3 "healthiest" members of my family died the youngest by quite some margin. My mum is still alive (hasn't smoked in 30 years), as is my dad (recently quit after 50ish years)...

It's a risk we all take. Some of us don't take that risk and still die from Cancer.

Again you miss the point somewhat. Do you truly believe there is no legal way to treat what you want?

My point re: cancer, is for those who knowingly take substances or do things that have a proven risk then expect the rest of us to pay for their treatment.

Just like those who refuse to register or warrant their vehicles, or drive drunk and crash because of it. Or burglers who injure themselves while committing a burglary.

Life sucks at times and the most careful can die or get sick, not my argument if you read it right.

mashman

30th September 2011, 16:27

Again you miss the point somewhat. Do you truly believe there is no legal way to treat what you want?

My point re: cancer, is for those who knowingly take substances or do things that have a proven risk then expect the rest of us to pay for their treatment.

Just like those who refuse to register or warrant their vehicles, or drive drunk and crash because of it. Or burglers who injure themselves while committing a burglary.

Life sucks at times and the most careful can die or get sick, not my argument if you read it right.

What I want? What do I want Ed? I know what works for me :yes:

You can't have it both ways Ed. Cancer is Cancer, wether you smoke or not. I pay my "fees", why shouldn't I be looked after? You took a risk driving your car that day, why should I pay for you because you decided to drive the transport with the worst injury record?

That's disappointing to hear.

So your argument isn't about watching what you put into your body in order to prolong your life expectancy for your family and those around you?

imdying

30th September 2011, 16:49

The problem with this is that in support of the desire to see it legalised, those who use it for pleasure try to claim it is harmless. Certainly the issue of legality is for the Government of the day to decide, but trying to claim that Cannabis use is both harmless and beneficial is never going to work.I don't want to see it legalised, I want the hypocrisy to end and booze made illegal. Neither has a place in society given the potential ills.

Clockwork

30th September 2011, 16:51

.... I also disagree with those who take known harmful substances then expect the medical profession to treat them on the public purse when they get cancer or other consequences. If you get cancer from smoking what will you do?

Fair's fair. If he gets cancer from smoking, well it's not like he hasn't paid any tax for the health care now is it?

And as I recall, that was the justification for whacking tobacco taxes up in the first place!!!

Mad-V2

30th September 2011, 16:52

blackdog

30th September 2011, 17:00

Truly spoken by someone who does not do any study or research for himself. How many medical journals and articles have you read by qualified researchers? My own opinions are based upon research and personal experiences. I've been around a long time and experienced teh best and worst life can offer, short of actually dying.

You don't need to smoke weed or get drunk to know the effects. You don't need to crash to know it hurts. You don't need to drown to warn someone of the dangers.

All I have done is tell what the properly reasearched and published evidence is saying, and anyone can confirm it for themselves. If I what I post irritates anyone, tough! I call a spade a spade and don't tickle anyone's ears for their sakes. If you disagree with me, that's entirely your prerogative, but name calling and getting angry, demeans you and discredits you. It merely suggests you have no real argument you can support with reason or evidence and don't know what you are talking about.

So easily trolled my friend. As for research and study, that is what I do.

Just like ACC stats and evidence, you can bend it anyway you like. You say potato I say potato. Your manipulation of statistics to suit your own means ranks you right up there with Nick Smith in my opinion. And it is just that. My opinion. And yours.

You are entitled to yours, but again it reminds me of the JW's trying to press there opinions and beliefs on others.

Ever considered politics?

Edbear

30th September 2011, 17:00

What I want? What do I want Ed? I know what works for me :yes:

You can't have it both ways Ed. Cancer is Cancer, wether you smoke or not. I pay my "fees", why shouldn't I be looked after? You took a risk driving your car that day, why should I pay for you because you decided to drive the transport with the worst injury record?

That's disappointing to hear.

So your argument isn't about watching what you put into your body in order to prolong your life expectancy for your family and those around you?

I was driving legally and safely with my vehicle up to standard and in fact better than standard. Th e SCU apportioned no blame to me or teh vehicle but concluded I slipped on oil that was invisible in the rain. As I said, life sucks at times.

But the argument here is about legalising Cannabis for personal use. If you want it legalised for personal use, lobby the lawmakers. But to claim there is nothing else that is a legal alternative is wrong and to deny the medical evidence flies in the face of reason and can do your cause no good at all.

One can rationalise almost any viewpoint, but stick to facts and honesty. It is your choice to use Cannabis because you want to and you can't seek to justify it against the factual evidence and expect people to support you.

All you can do is to simply say, "I choose cannabis to do what I want and that's the end of the argument."

Edbear

30th September 2011, 17:03

The "Qualified Medical Researcher" crap doesn't work with me either
The qualified medical researcher you get your info from only knows half the story.
You can't beat personal experience.
Can you teach someone to fly a plane when all you know about flying is what you've read in a book?
Yes there are health risks in smoking/vapourising/eating cannabis.
But the risks are less than most other drugs on the market we take for health purposes. Prescription and even non prescription drugs kill more people every year than cannabis ever could.
If a qualified medical researcher handed you a bag of weed and said "take this twice daily untill finished" would you take it?

Sigh... :facepalm:

So easily trolled my friend. As for research and study, that is what I do.

Just like ACC stats and evidence, you can bend it anyway you like. You say potato I say potato. Your manipulation of statistics to suit your own means ranks you right up there with Nick Smith in my opinion. And it is just that. My opinion. And yours.

You are entitled to yours, but again it reminds me of the JW's trying to press there opinions and beliefs on others.

Ever considered politics?

Show me where I've "manipulated statistics" again..?

Edbear

30th September 2011, 17:06

Fair's fair. If he gets cancer from smoking, well it's not like he hasn't paid any tax for the health care now is it?

And as I recall, that was the justification for whacking tobacco taxes up in the first place!!!

It is a medically proven fact that smoking causes cancer, so to knowingly take up smoking in the face of this, what does that say about the person?

imdying

30th September 2011, 17:16

It is a medically proven fact that smoking causes cancerWell that's not true. Cigarettes are merely one of many factors that can increase the incidence of lung cancer. If you've never been exposed to cigarette smoke you can still get lung cancer. Even if you only look at the statistics for the heaviest of smokers, you're still only looking at less than 6% ever getting lung cancer.

Clockwork

30th September 2011, 17:40

It is a medically proven fact that smoking causes cancer, so to knowingly take up smoking in the face of this, what does that say about the person?

This may be so but.....

Not everyone who smokes gets cancer......

Not everyone who has cancer has smoked.....

Where does that leave us?

Well that's not true. Cigarettes are merely one of many factors that can increase the incidence of lung cancer. If you've never been exposed to cigarette smoke you can still get lung cancer. Even if you only look at the statistics for the heaviest of smokers, you're still only looking at less than 6% ever getting lung cancer.

Edit. Oops should read to the end before putting my oar in.

Mad-V2

30th September 2011, 17:44

It is a medically proven fact that smoking causes cancer, so to knowingly take up smoking in the face of this, what does that say about the person?

Carcinogens are all around us, they cause cancer. You know X-Rays can give you cancer and yet you have had them done, Grilling meat can create carcinogens similar those found in cigarettes, but I bet you will have a few Bar-B's this summer, and maybe you'll sink a beer or two aswell, beer can cause cancer.
Even the Sun will give you cancer, you know that it does and yet you go out under it every other day. What does that say about you?

blackdog

30th September 2011, 17:45

It is a medically proven fact that smoking causes cancer, so to knowingly take up smoking in the face of this, what does that say about the person?

You have conveniently forgotten my post regarding hydrators and cookies. Fuck I'm getting sick of this.

mashman

30th September 2011, 17:46

I was driving legally and safely with my vehicle up to standard and in fact better than standard. Th e SCU apportioned no blame to me or teh vehicle but concluded I slipped on oil that was invisible in the rain. As I said, life sucks at times.

But the argument here is about legalising Cannabis for personal use. If you want it legalised for personal use, lobby the lawmakers. But to claim there is nothing else that is a legal alternative is wrong and to deny the medical evidence flies in the face of reason and can do your cause no good at all.

One can rationalise almost any viewpoint, but stick to facts and honesty. It is your choice to use Cannabis because you want to and you can't seek to justify it against the factual evidence and expect people to support you.

All you can do is to simply say, "I choose cannabis to do what I want and that's the end of the argument."

It's still the most dangerous form of transport on the road and I shouldn't have to pay for you taking that risk. Are you denying the facts? Aye, it sucks more than you can possibly imagine. You've had it easy in comparison to a lot of people.

Not it's not, it's about decriminalisation. I would lobby the lawmakers, but as successive attempts have been swatted away based on the ignorance and 1 side of the science, I reckon I'd get the same result as the smacking bill... most of the votes, and ignored by govt irrespective. I didn't deny the medical evidence, but you seem to if it doesn't align with your research. Unless of course you read the pro-marijuana evidence also. In which case, why did you dismiss it?

Why would I search for something else, when I know that there is a substance available that grows naturally without additives, preservatives, e-numbers, and hasn't been synthesised by morons who believe that it's safer to synthesise a solution (by removign what is perceived as useless "components"), so long as you list the side-effects on the box. Every medication does, your health professional would also point this out to you. I know the affects of marijuana on my body, and it responds very well to my physical needs. I'm surprised that your first thought, about my "irritibility" went to straight to cigarettes and not to my sleeping issues... which no doubt you'll blame on cigarettes too. I have all of the evidence I need Ed, both good and bad... What more do I need to know?

That's all I should have to say. I know it works and would rather not run the gambit of the medical professions trial and error, potentially causing me more harm than good.

Mad-V2

30th September 2011, 17:58

Also I'd like to thank Don Brash for raising the issue and creating a well overdue nationwide disscusion on the subject.
Even though it will take a lot more than that to get my vote.
NICE ONE :2thumbsup

scumdog

30th September 2011, 18:15

If decriminalised it immediately takes away the criminal element. No more gang involvement, no more guns to protect crops, no more money going back into the hands of those that are an actual danger to society.

.

Great, legalise pot and the gangs will almost die out cos they've no stuff to sell/protect/get an income from, life will be SO much safer eh!

I wonder who will take over selling 'P' and shit like that??

No!:shit: not the gangs surely???

blackdog

30th September 2011, 18:33

Great, legalise pot and the gangs will almost die out cos they've no stuff to sell/protect/get an income from, life will be SO much safer eh!

I wonder who will take over selling 'P' and shit like that??

No!:shit: not the gangs surely???

Of course the gangs control all the P already scummy I would have thought of all people you would realise that.

If you remove the cannabis arrow from their quiver surely that makes them weaker? It is the LARGEST source of income for gangs in NZ, by decriminalising mary jane you are inhibiting their income stream where it hurts the most. ie/- no pot money coming in equals no capital to spend on meth manufacture.

Cannibis becoming legal would by far be the biggest coup against organised crime in NZ since the implementation of fingerprinting.

scumdog

30th September 2011, 18:37

Scuba_Steve

30th September 2011, 18:42

blackdog

30th September 2011, 18:47

Pfft..You would have to be Polly-fuckin'-Anna to believe THIS clap-trap.

I'm off to my little glass pipe where I might get more sense than THAT last post.e sense.

You needn't be insulting about it. I am happy to be educated if I'm wrong. If not for the million lbs of weed they move each year what is their main source of income?

Shadowjack

30th September 2011, 18:47

Of course the gangs control all the P already scummy I would have thought of all people you would realise that.

If you remove the cannabis arrow from their quiver surely that makes them weaker? It is the LARGEST source of income for gangs in NZ by decriminilising mary jane you are inhibiting their income stream where it hurts the most. ie/- no pot money coming in equals no capital to spend on meth manufacture.
So, let me see:
It's (marijuana, that is) my largest income stream;
I have access (if not outright control of) to the manufacture and distribution streams;
It's currently illegal, but my customer base is agitating/lobbying to make it not illegal.
What could I possibly do to protect my business.....

There's already models in place to study how to do this, aren't there. That's right, that man deserves a DB!

Seriously, you expect the current distributors to get out of a major earner because it may become legal...

blackdog

30th September 2011, 18:50

unfortunately weed is "pocket money" or "chump change" to them, they really have little interest in it at the end of the day, thats left for the low ranks to deal with.

Citation needed.

blackdog

30th September 2011, 18:55

I'm off to my little glass pipe where I might get more sense than THAT last post.e sense.

Well back to the debate at hand, wouldn't removing any form of income be beneficial in the long run?

imdying

30th September 2011, 19:26

Cannibis becoming legal would by far be the biggest coup against organised crime in NZ since the implementation of fingerprinting.Did legalising prostitution help reduce their revenue streams? Could be worth finding out. Although, that would require legalisation instead of decriminalisation?

imdying

30th September 2011, 19:29

Well back to the debate at hand, wouldn't removing any form of income be beneficial in the long run?It seems likely that marijuana cultivation is still bringing in new gangs to our turf, the Vietnamese over the last decade for example. I would have thought that given the ease of access in NZ (reputedly easier than any other country) the market was already saturated, but it would appear not, surely in part due to our ever changing ethnic mix.

imdying

30th September 2011, 19:32

unfortunately weed is "pocket money" or "chump change" to them, they really have little interest in it at the end of the day, thats left for the low ranks to deal with.The NZ Police National Intelligence Centre believe that it is used to significantly fund their meth importation. They have a fairly one sided view on things, so one assumes that they're not telling porkies.

Citation needed.Not needed, the police for one believe that to be false.

blackdog

30th September 2011, 19:34

Did legalising prostitution help reduce their revenue streams? Could be worth finding out. Although, that would require legalisation instead of decriminalisation?

In the case of prozzies the whole point wasn't to reduce revenue, but to increase it and tax it. Seems to have worked quite nicely too.

You are right though, it requires legalisation rather than decriminilising for anything to filter through to the government accounts.

Imagine the tourist dollars then! RWC eat yer heart out.

imdying

30th September 2011, 19:37

Imagine the tourist dollars then! RWC eat yer heart out.Haven't the Dutch just changed their laws to try and eliminate drug tourists as they've found them to be a little antisocial? I for one don't want them here (these are people that love drugs enough to want to travel for them), but I do feel NZers should be able to make their own decisions on weed if they're capable of making their own decisions on booze.

Scuba_Steve

30th September 2011, 19:38

Citation needed.

gonna be a bit hard, but just talk to the gangs (has to be higher up the food chain tho, the low minions do have delusions of their importance)

Did legalising prostitution help reduce their revenue streams? Could be worth finding out. Although, that would require legalisation instead of decriminalisation?

Yes, now they have to pay tax & ACC

The NZ Police National Intelligence Centre believe that it is used to significantly fund their meth importation. They have a fairly one sided view on things, so one assumes that they're not telling porkies.

"NZ police national intelligence" :rofl:
They might have been right to start (you know back in the 90's) but now the gangs have money.

mashman

30th September 2011, 19:40

You are right though, it requires legalisation rather than decriminilising for anything to filter through to the government accounts.

Marijuana is still illegal in Holland... albeit legalised by proxy as the govt still get their bite from sales tax.

imdying

30th September 2011, 19:43

"NZ police national intelligence" :rofl:
They might have been right to start (you know back in the 90's) but now the gangs have money.That's a point, that horse may have indeed bolted.

NZ has always been a little slow off the mark though when it comes to issues that have international trade intermingled with them, and fair enough too, we rely on it heavily. So if we decriminalise, how are the USA going to feel about that?

The police might seem a little thick, but I like to think that's funding issue rather than the alternative (i.e. they are).

blackdog

30th September 2011, 19:47

Marijuana is still illegal in Holland... albeit legalised by proxy as the govt still get their bite from sales tax.

No argument here.

scumdog

30th September 2011, 19:49

mashman

30th September 2011, 19:49

Haven't the Dutch just changed their laws to try and eliminate drug tourists as they've found them to be a little antisocial? I for one don't want them here (these are people that love drugs enough to want to travel for them), but I do feel NZers should be able to make their own decisions on weed if they're capable of making their own decisions on booze.

Amsterdam is bonkers. Totally and utterly bonkers. Walk up the main street from the station and you soon get bored with hearing "Aceeed, Ecstaseeee, Cocaine, Heroin, Speeeeeed etc..." (and that was 20 years ago), every 10 paces there's someone selling you something more damaging :rofl:, and not a cop in sight. I'd hope that the cops would stop that sort of shit dead in its tracks here, if we had a similar pot cafe culture that is.

mashman

30th September 2011, 19:52

NZ has always been a little slow off the mark though when it comes to issues that have international trade intermingled with them, and fair enough too, we rely on it heavily. So if we decriminalise, how are the USA going to feel about that?

heh, is that the same USA that are allowing medical marijuana to be sold from licenced premises... those same premises that hire people to courier marijuana to their customers? that the same USA you're talking about?

scumdog

30th September 2011, 19:55

Mashman.
Drugs equivalent of speeds Jack Miller.

How appropriate.:shutup:

mashman

30th September 2011, 19:57

Mashman.
Drugs equivalent of speeds Jack Miller.

How appropriate.:shutup:

Linky then scummy...

imdying

30th September 2011, 20:06

Yup, changed things as they got sick of green Kiwis (and others) who thought you could fly to Holland, duck into any cafe', grab a hooter and walk off down the street toking their heart out....They lost site of the original intent, which wasn't a bag thing in itself, which is why they law changes only apply to the tourists.

heh, is that the same USA that are allowing medical marijuana to be sold from licenced premises... those same premises that hire people to courier marijuana to their customers? that the same USA you're talking about?They are indeed coming around in their own time. Once they get their, then New Zealand can do their thing without fear of reprisal. Being a lap dog of a country like that is a bitter pill to swallow, but that's one of the joys of being small.

mashman

30th September 2011, 20:09

They are indeed coming around in their own time. Once they get their, then New Zealand can do their thing without fear of reprisal. Being a lap dog of a country like that is a bitter pill to swallow, but that's one of the joys of being small.

:mad::angry2::doobey::cry: bagga ...

Gearup

30th September 2011, 20:16

gonna be a bit hard, but just talk to the gangs (has to be higher up the food chain tho, the low minions do have delusions of their importance)

Yes, now they have to pay tax & ACC

"NZ police national intelligence" :rofl:
They might have been right to start (you know back in the 90's) but now the gangs have money.

"Police intelligence", that's a contradiction in terms.

husaberg

30th September 2011, 20:37

Biased towards the defendant. Surely if they get off, then justice has been served? Don't be bitter about it because you think you know better than the judge... :rofl:@not necessarily innocent even though they have been found to be innocent by the legal system. Healthy prejudice you have their.

Imagine how few of us dole dwellers you'd have to deal with if marijuana was decriminalised...

I wonder why I would bother to reply to your posts.
But as I clearly stated being found not guilty is not the same as being innocent. It is a very simple concept.
Why is it that you can't comprehend such a simple fact.

blackdog

30th September 2011, 20:50

But don't expect me to reply anymore

Nice to see a man with the courage of his convictions.

mashman

30th September 2011, 20:50

I wonder why I would bother to reply to your posts.
But as I clearly stated being found not guilty is not the same as being innocent
Why is it that you can't comprehend that one simple thing.

I understand it fine thanks... Tis you that refuses to see both sides of the "argument"... I grew up in a country that has a not proven verdict. But as we are supposed innocent until proven guilty and your law makes no provision for a not proven verdict (implied by not guilty or not), the person has been found not guilty (innocent) irrespective of their actual guilt (non innocence) and should be treated as innocent as they have been judged. Otherwise you'd have a third verdict. Get better evidence next time, become a better lawyer, sorry, barrister, or get a third verdict... :bleh:

puddytat

30th September 2011, 21:17

I wonder why I would bother to reply to your posts.
.

Then dont .You could just shut the fuck up.:yes:

Man ,Im away for 2 days & have to catch up on heaps of new posts which has taken over an hour,had all these great opinions on everything & the answers to all the questions & then I got :doobey:
So .....Fuck it!!
I'll watch the Rugby

scumdog

30th September 2011, 21:22

Then dont .You could just shut the fuck up.:yes:

Man ,Im away for 2 days & have to catch up on heaps of new posts which has taken over an hour,had all these great opinions on everything & the answers to all the questions & then I got :doobey:
So .....Fuck it!!
I'll watch the Rugby

You're wasting KB time to watch RUGBY????:blink:

Winston001

30th September 2011, 21:44

Zedder

30th September 2011, 22:04

Couple of thoughts:

Why have the number of "coffeeshops" in the Netherlands dropped by 50% over the last decade?

Why has no nation followed Portugal? - its 10 years since that country legalised narcotics.

Is altering your mental cognition using introduced chemicals actually a good thing?

It could be a bit like the "New Zealand Experiment" of pure neo-liberal economic theory. "Rah rah rah best thing we ever did and a model for the rest of the world etc" to start with, then "Oh bugger it's turned to custard in a big way" and finally "Let's pretend it never happened and it might go away."

mashman

30th September 2011, 22:18

Couple of thoughts:

Why have the number of "coffeeshops" in the Netherlands dropped by 50% over the last decade?

Why has no nation followed Portugal? - its 10 years since that country legalised narcotics.

Is altering your mental cognition using introduced chemicals actually a good thing?

Source for the coffee shops? Interested in the read :yes:

Not a clue. The cynic in me believes that it's a vote loser and/or everyone expected the quality of life in Portugal to tank. (not sure if it has, but I can't find anything to support that).

There's 2 sets of research :laugh:... I could argue, and have :rofl:, that it's done me no harm... but I've never seen it as my mental cognition having changed. I'm still me, but more relaxed... testimony of the wife.

Winston001

30th September 2011, 22:26

It could be a bit like the "New Zealand Experiment" of pure neo-liberal economic theory. "Rah rah rah best thing we ever did and a model for the rest of the world etc" to start with, then "Oh bugger it's turned to custard in a big way" and finally "Let's pretend it never happened and it might go away."

Yeeesss...but NO. Admittedly many Kiwis would like to think our recent economic changes were that simple but not so.

In 1982 Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan turned to the Chicago School of neoclassical economics (Milton Friedman) to address stagnant economies. NZ was an early adopter in 1985/85 then most OECD countries did the same.

And it was the best thing we ever did.

In an alternative world we'd now be like Greece but without any other countries to bail us out. Sort of the Albania of the Pacific. Kind of lyrical n'est pas. :D

Zedder

30th September 2011, 22:38

Yeeesss...but NO. Admittedly many Kiwis would like to think our recent economic changes were that simple but not so.

In 1982 Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan turned to the Chicago School of neoclassical economics (Milton Friedman) to address stagnant economies. NZ was an early adopter in 1985/85 then most OECD countries did the same.

And it was the best thing we ever did.

In an alternative world we'd now be like Greece but without any other countries to bail us out. Sort of the Albania of the Pacific. Kind of lyrical n'est pas. :D

Not according to Professor Jane Kelsey.

jazfender

1st October 2011, 10:14

"Portugal is a developed country with an advanced and high-income economy, with a very high Human Development Index. It has the world's 19th-highest quality-of-life, one of the top health care systems, and it's also one of the world's most globalized and peaceful nations."

.......

**Edit - Also:

"Portugal has arguably the most liberal laws concerning possession of illicit drugs in the Western world. In 2001 Portugal decriminalized possession of effectively all drugs that are still illegal in other developed nations including, but not limited to, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and LSD. While possession is legal, trafficking and possession of more than "10 days worth of personal use" are still punishable by jail time and fines. People caught with small amounts of any drug are given the choice to go to a rehab facility, and may refuse treatment without consequences. Despite criticism from other European nations, who stated Portugal's drug consumption would tremendously increase, overall drug use rose only slightly, whilst use among teenagers dropped, along with the number of HIV infection cases, which had dropped 50% by 2009."

Fuck I love wikipedia.

Road kill

1st October 2011, 10:42

You needn't be insulting about it. I am happy to be educated if I'm wrong. If not for the million lbs of weed they move each year what is their main source of income?

He does that every time he doesn't have an answer to something.
Gives him time to get the latest company line from his handlers,,,don't worry he'll be back,,,,just like herpies.

scumdog

1st October 2011, 10:47

He does that every time he doesn't have an answer to something.
Gives him time to get the latest company line from his handlers,,,don't worry he'll be back,,,,just like herpies.

THAT'S the story - in with insults and slanging...biff!..Smack! whammo!

blackdog

1st October 2011, 10:55

THAT'S the story - in with insults and slanging...biff!..Smack! whammo!

Still waiting for an answer to the question.

Winston001

1st October 2011, 13:29

Not according to Professor Jane Kelsey.

Fair enough, I respect her but it depends upon what parameters she gives an opinion.

For example, NZ found the transition from Fortress New Zealand (essentially Rob Muldoon's vision) to monetarist open economics very difficult.

Nevertheless it was benign compared with the fall of the Iron Curtain. Those countries moved overnight from state repression (and support) to a very cold reality because their production was at the point of collapse.

"Portugal is a developed country with an advanced and high-income economy, with a very high Human Development Index. It has the world's 19th-highest quality-of-life, one of the top health care systems, and it's also one of the world's most globalized and peaceful nations."

.......

**Edit - Also:

"Portugal has arguably the most liberal laws concerning possession of illicit drugs in the Western world. In 2001 Portugal decriminalized possession of effectively all drugs that are still illegal in other developed nations including, but not limited to, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and LSD. While possession is legal, trafficking and possession of more than "10 days worth of personal use" are still punishable by jail time and fines. People caught with small amounts of any drug are given the choice to go to a rehab facility, and may refuse treatment without consequences. Despite criticism from other European nations, who stated Portugal's drug consumption would tremendously increase, overall drug use rose only slightly, whilst use among teenagers dropped, along with the number of HIV infection cases, which had dropped 50% by 2009."

Fuck I love wikipedia.

Yeah. I'm not convinced Portugal is as highly rated today and it is generally regarded as one of Europe's poor on a par with Greece.

I have no view on their drug liberalisation, simply wonder why other nations haven't followed suit. For example, the liberal places such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Denmark. They are full of hippies and you'd expect them to have adopted the same policies years ago.

Why not?

Zedder

1st October 2011, 14:38

Fair enough, I respect her but it depends upon what parameters she gives an opinion.

For example, NZ found the transition from Fortress New Zealand (essentially Rob Muldoon's vision) to monetarist open economics very difficult.

Nevertheless it was benign compared with the fall of the Iron Curtain. Those countries moved overnight from state repression (and support) to a very cold reality because their production was at the point of collapse.

Yeah. I'm not convinced Portugal is as highly rated today and it is generally regarded as one of Europe's poor on a par with Greece.

I have no view on their drug liberalisation, simply wonder why other nations haven't followed suit. For example, the liberal places such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Denmark. They are full of hippies and you'd expect them to have adopted the same policies years ago.

Why not?

Far from benign for New Zealand Winston.

Professor Kelsey shows the application of pure neo-liberal economic theory had a far reaching economic, social, democratic and cultural downside that we're still coming to terms with today. Have a read of the book if you get the chance.

As far as Portugal goes, I tend to agree, it's not something that's been copied in other liberal countries.

jazfender

1st October 2011, 14:54

I have no view on their drug liberalisation, simply wonder why other nations haven't followed suit. For example, the liberal places such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Denmark. They are full of hippies and you'd expect them to have adopted the same policies years ago.

Why not?

I think there could be any number of reasons for why they haven't which has nothing to do with "the Portugal experiment".

Public opinion might be one.

Zedder

1st October 2011, 15:15

I think there could be any number of reasons for why they haven't which has nothing to do with "the Portugal experiment".

Public opinion might be one.

Look Jazfender, stop this talk or you could get a visit from Sgt. Stadanko.

Winston001

1st October 2011, 16:10

Far from benign for New Zealand Winston.

Professor Kelsey shows the application of pure neo-liberal economic theory had a far reaching economic, social, democratic and cultural downside that we're still coming to terms with today. Have a read of the book if you get the chance.

She's written a few - which one?

We're going off-topic but despite all the angst and mis-remembered facts regarding the "Rogernomics" changes, what do we have to complain about today?

Consumer goods which many consider essential have fallen markedly in cost since 1984 (cars, motorcycles, computers, cellphones, furniture etc etc). Supermarkets are always busy. Very expensive cafes and bars line main streets and are full of people - these didn't even exist in 1984.

We have stadiums dotted around the country, good roads (considering we are a mountainous set of islands with only 4 million), excellent hospitals, schools, universities, polytechs. Average people own McMansions compared to our parents generation.

Beautiful sweeping beaches, verdant bush, fishing, hunting, tramping, solitude when you need it.

Honestly I can't see what people (including Jane Kelsey) moan about.

Edbear

1st October 2011, 16:13

She's written a few - which one?

We're going off-topic but despite all the angst and mis-remembered facts regarding the "Rogernomics" changes, what do we have to complain about today?

Consumer goods which many consider essential have fallen markedly in cost since 1984 (cars, motorcycles, computers, cellphones, furniture etc etc). Supermarkets are always busy. Very expensive cafes and bars line main streets and are full of people - these didn't even exist in 1984.

We have stadiums dotted around the country, good roads (considering we are a mountainous set of islands with only 4 million), excellent hospitals, schools, universities, polytechs. Average people own McMansions compared to our parents generation.

Beautiful sweeping beaches, verdant bush, fishing, hunting, tramping, solitude when you need it.

Honestly I can't see what people (including Jane Kelsey) moan about.

Some see a glass half full, some see the glass half empty...

Zedder

1st October 2011, 16:19

She's written a few - which one?

We're going off-topic but despite all the angst and mis-remembered facts regarding the "Rogernomics" changes, what do we have to complain about today?

Consumer goods which many consider essential have fallen markedly in cost since 1984 (cars, motorcycles, computers, cellphones, furniture etc etc). Supermarkets are always busy. Very expensive cafes and bars line main streets and are full of people - these didn't even exist in 1984.

We have stadiums dotted around the country, good roads (considering we are a mountainous set of islands with only 4 million), excellent hospitals, schools, universities, polytechs. Average people own McMansions compared to our parents generation.

Beautiful sweeping beaches, verdant bush, fishing, hunting, tramping, solitude when you need it.

Honestly I can't see what people (including Jane Kelsey) moan about.

The book is called "The New Zealand Experiment", sorry, I thought from what you wrote earlier you knew of it. Who said she was moaning?

sidecar bob

1st October 2011, 18:39

Is altering your mental cognition using introduced chemicals actually a good thing?

Nope, in my experience it makes people as dumb as fuck, while arguing that black is white with a smug superior attitude.
It also makes people paticularly agressive if they havent had their daily fix, & also makes people punch their racing sponsor in the head if they dont get given what they want. Hey, only my experience though, so probably not valid because its not based on a huge study & dosent paint dope in a great light.

Edbear

1st October 2011, 19:26

Nope, in my experience it makes people as dumb as fuck, while arguing that black is white with a smug superior attitude.
It also makes people paticularly agressive if they havent had their daily fix, & also makes people punch their racing sponsor in the head if they dont get given what they want. Hey, only my experience though, so probably not valid because its not based on a huge study & dosent paint dope in a great light.

Now you do realise that in this discussion, personal experience first hand from the opposite point of view is automatically invalid... :shutup:

Even qualified medical specialists in drug effects really have no idea what they are talking about, neither do any emergency or hospital staff, Drs. and psych experts who deal with it on a daily basis, really know anything much at all as they önly see the "bad side.."

As for law enforcement officers and court staff, lawyers and judges, hell, what do they know about anything? :blink:

Usarka

1st October 2011, 19:42

Even qualified medical specialists in drug effects really have no idea what they are talking about, neither do any emergency or hospital staff, Drs. and psych experts who deal with it on a daily basis, really know anything much at all as they önly see the "bad side.."

I disagree. If you asked a psych worker whether they smoked weed there is no way they'd say that they did unless you're a personal friend.

I do know a psych worker who reckons that the jury is out on pot and there are a lot of positive benefits for some conditions. And yes he smokes occassionaly. And drinks. And sometimes uses sample drus sent to him.....

Edbear

1st October 2011, 20:02

I disagree. If you asked a psych worker whether they smoked weed there is no way they'd say that they did unless you're a personal friend.

I do know a psych worker who reckons that the jury is out on pot and there are a lot of positive benefits for some conditions. And yes he smokes occassionaly. And drinks. And sometimes uses sample drus sent to him.....

I truly wonder just how many contributors to this thread have actually done what I have done and spent a lot of time researching drugs from an unbiased view. I've spent probably the major part of my life around and on medication of many kinds. I've nearly died 5 or 6 times, I've spent months in hospital and having just about every kind of medical test and examination known to the Profession. I've battled severe drug addiction to prescription painkillers and I've lost a few body parts along the way.

I don't believe in ignorance about important topics and do my study in depth. My current surgeon and anaethetist were very complimentary that I could converse with them in their language and had a good grasp of the issues I faced.

Sadly, that means nothing at all to those who don't know me, but that's life on the Internet. I only have the genuine interests of you all at heart and am not trying to beat up on anyone. I know first hand the issues we face.

mashman

1st October 2011, 20:32

Now you do realise that in this discussion, personal experience first hand from the opposite point of view is automatically invalid...

Even qualified medical specialists in drug effects really have no idea what they are talking about, neither do any emergency or hospital staff, Drs. and psych experts who deal with it on a daily basis, really know anything much at all as they önly see the "bad side.."

As for law enforcement officers and court staff, lawyers and judges, hell, what do they know about anything?

Damn that's funny... did you read any of the posts earlier in the thread where the druggies admitted that there were risks? and some of us had lost friends that may well have been alive had they not "smoked"? So who's ignoring what again?

The rub is, is that the medical experts etc... have said that there is a risk... a risk is not the guarantee that you are "preaching". So why is it that people who don't take marijuana contract exactly the same illnesses?

Meanwhile, the same people that don't allow marijuana, allow substances with far greater health risks associated with them to be available to the general public. But that's fine, because it's been given a legal seal of approval?

I've battled severe drug addiction to prescription painkillers

Nuff said! the hypocrisy of the anti-marijuana fraternity knows no bounds.

Winston001

1st October 2011, 20:32

. Who said she was moaning?

Quite right, my bad. Apologies.

imdying

1st October 2011, 21:38

Nuff said! the hypocrisy of the anti-marijuana fraternity knows no bounds.Be fair, that could happen to anybody. Ask OAB if painkillers gave him any trouble. I don't know for sure, but given that he had his nerves ripped out of his spinal column, and yet still won't take them anymore, I'm guessing they weren't a fun time for him. Drugs, recreational (weed), medincal (painkillers), or social (alcohol), all have the potential for abuse. Should we legislate for the lowest common denomiator, hell no.

mashman

1st October 2011, 21:53

Be fair, that could happen to anybody. Ask OAB if painkillers gave him any trouble. I don't know for sure, but given that he had his nerves ripped out of his spinal column, and yet still won't take them anymore, I'm guessing they weren't a fun time for him. Drugs, recreational (weed), medincal (painkillers), or social (alcohol), all have the potential for abuse. Should we legislate for the lowest common denomiator, hell no.

I agree and wasn't having a pop at Ed, just the legal pills that are probably more addictive than marijuana and the hypocrisy of the anti-marijuana lobby in defending them based on a legal status.

rainman

2nd October 2011, 08:47

Honestly I can't see what people moan about.

Debt is the traditional gripe, I believe.

Also reduced sovereign control of our own economy, excessive dependence on overseas interests, lower levels of self-sufficiency and greater risk exposure to adverse global conditions (either economic, or particularly for us so far away from everything, physical resources like oil).

And of course greater wealth and income inequality, with associated on-going social problems, low wage growth, the need for high levels of welfare/WfF, needlessly high and unstable unemployment...

When people say "capitalism is broken", they usually mean the Reagan/Thatcher/Friedman/Douglas kind. Because it is evil. Fortress NZ may have been or may not have been bad for NZ but Douglas' reforms were extreme and poorly considered.

Zedder

2nd October 2011, 12:02

Debt is the traditional gripe, I believe.

Also reduced sovereign control of our own economy, excessive dependence on overseas interests, lower levels of self-sufficiency and greater risk exposure to adverse global conditions (either economic, or particularly for us so far away from everything, physical resources like oil).

And of course greater wealth and income inequality, with associated on-going social problems, low wage growth, the need for high levels of welfare/WfF, needlessly high and unstable unemployment...

When people say "capitalism is broken", they usually mean the Reagan/Thatcher/Friedman/Douglas kind. Because it is evil. Fortress NZ may have been or may not have been bad for NZ but Douglas' reforms were extreme and poorly considered.

Yep, I certainly don't disagree with that.

puddytat

2nd October 2011, 19:31

Well, I do believe Drugs have done some good for us, I really do. And if you dont think Drugs have done some good for us, then take all your albums,all your tapes & all your Cds' & burn them!!
Because all those musicians who have enhanced your lives over the years.....

They were reeeeaaal fuckin' high on drugs.:yes:

Winston001

2nd October 2011, 22:29

I agree with much of what you say but I don't know that the average talk-back radio caller or indeed KB poster cares about all of them.

Debt is the traditional gripe, I believe.

Agreed, as it always has been. Debtors prisons only 150 years ago.

Also reduced sovereign control of our own economy,

Really? Even Zimbabwe (the former breadbasket of Africa) remains sovereign. If you mean the change to employment law associated with The Hobbit, it seems a minor change to clarify our law.

excessive dependence on overseas interests, lower levels of self-sufficiency and greater risk exposure to adverse global conditions (either economic, or particularly for us so far away from everything, physical resources like oil).

Agreed and the irony is that Bill Birch's much maligned Think Big projects (early 80s) were aimed exactly at NZ gaining self-sufficiency.

And of course greater wealth and income inequality, with associated on-going social problems, low wage growth, the need for high levels of welfare/WfF, needlessly high and unstable unemployment...

When people say "capitalism is broken", they usually mean the Reagan/Thatcher/Friedman/Douglas kind. Because it is evil. Fortress NZ may have been or may not have been bad for NZ but Douglas' reforms were extreme and poorly considered.

Again agreed on wealth inequality but I'm darned if I can see even in hindsight what successive governments could have done differently. NZs economy suffered two king hits: Britain joining the Common Market in 1973 and the First Oil Shock also in 1973.

From then on we became a small forgotten country in the South Pacific with a first world standard of living but a second world income. Australia and South Africa faced the same problems but they had the advantages of huge land areas and....minerals.

FWIW capitalism is not broken. Its been the main economic model for most nations over the past 400 years. The modern treatment is to constrain capitalism through social democracy. Its not perfect but better than all the rest.

oldrider

2nd October 2011, 22:35

Douglas' reforms were extreme and poorly considered.

Yes but they did give us just enough of a glimpse to see that handled properly they could have done a lot more for this country than anything else before or since!

Douglas was not the real driver anyway, he was just doing as he was told by Treasury!

They and other government departments were the real drivers/advisers. (whatever)

Douglas never really has a history of seeing things out until completed, when the going gets tuff ... he gets going! :spanking:

mashman

2nd October 2011, 23:07

rainman

2nd October 2011, 23:19

I'm darned if I can see even in hindsight what successive governments could have done differently. NZs economy suffered two king hits: Britain joining the Common Market in 1973 and the First Oil Shock also in 1973.

From then on we became a small forgotten country in the South Pacific with a first world standard of living but a second world income.

Spot on. And our denial of this has just got us deeper and deeper in the shit ever since. As a second world economy we should not be pretending to play with the big boys, particularly at the poker table where the chips are our few remaining assets.

And guess what's coming up again sometime soon? The next oil shock. That's a king hit that will make 1973 look like a kiddies party.

FWIW capitalism is not broken. Its been the main economic model for most nations over the past 400 years. The modern treatment is to constrain capitalism through social democracy. Its not perfect but better than all the rest.

On the days where I'm not feeling particularly Buddhist libertarian socialist I tend to agree with that. Apart from fact that I think the modern treatment is to cross classical capitalism with something more akin to feudalism or plain ole fascism.

Yes but they did give us just enough of a glimpse to see that handled properly they could have done a lot more for this country than anything else before or since!

Yeah, but the trick is doing a lot more that will make the place better. That's we he went wrong.

Anyhoo, back to the drugs issue, before I drag this thread hopelessly off topic. I suspect Brash is right. This dude (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2040882,00.html) would agree with him, I'm sure, even if for somewhat more serious reasons than wasting a bit of dosh.

I'm so pleased Brash became Act leader, and comments like this one are mainly why. Watching them implode will be such fun. Of course the housewives of Epsom will probably hold their noses and vote Banks in anyway, despite my faint hopes for the exhibition of principle by the NZ electorate.

Zedder

3rd October 2011, 08:54

Roger Douglas was on Q+A this morning saying that he wished he and his government had paid more attention to social policies... I guess it was the start of a brave new world and they likely didn't realise that they were setting things in motion that would ripple on through NZ for decades to come, as they were saying that a lot of those policies are still around. Pretty hard to predict the future I guess.

Yes it's hard to predict the future Mashman but in this case it's about cause and effect.

Douglas and his little group of cohorts from Treasury and the Reserve Bank were supposedly intelligent and highly educated people. In their highly paid jobs they were meant to understand the implications of their actions globally and long term. They weren't running a one off sausage sizzle, they were running a country.

Just to keep it on the marijuana topic, maybe Douglas was on the weed when he wrote his book "There's got to be a better way" in 1980.

avgas

3rd October 2011, 11:12

And guess what's coming up again sometime soon? The next oil shock. That's a king hit that will make 1973 look like a kiddies party.
From a supplier point of view, its not going to happen on OPEC's books. They learn't a very valuable lesson then - and don't intend on repeating it. They get more money in the long run by slowly increasing the rate (an bleeding us dry). The effect of substitution is too strong now also. If the rate of petrol suddenly spiked we would almost immediately find a cheaper substitute. But so long as they don't do that we are dumb to what are actually doing.

However from a customer or even a govt perspective. All bets are off. US invading the middle east is evidence of that. Likewise demand for small cars is amazing. I recall seeing GM's roadmap for 2011. They were to release 1 new small car a month, and were killing off all except a handfull of the large cars. No money in them anymore.
Even the new US cop cars are going to be V6's as the last Crown Victoria rolled off the line last week.

OPEC are scared now, keeping the price cheap enough for everyone to buy. http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/2071.htm

scissorhands

3rd October 2011, 16:25

meh,

Is altering your mental cognition using introduced chemicals actually a good thing?

usually no unless you want to win in sport, in debate, a bigger erection, your unwell, umm all sorts really.......

Sure, totally straight is best, I have lived like a monk for over 10 years of my adult life, not even coffee. This is an ideal state for sure

But, I was still lazy and pretty much the same aspergian idiot that I usually am....

Why not get the downtrodden people off liver/kidney/ etc harmful substances that we now know costs the tax payer in medical costs to the state, and move all the freaks, retards and bitter niggers and alcoholics over onto a safe, non toxic substance that wont put them in hospital needing an operation for their oral addictions.

Is altering your mental cognition using introduced chemicals actually a good thing?

no but neither is riding a bike when you could drive a car or take a bus

Many cannabis users go on to good wholesome lives, many around here in Grey Lynn go on to become natural healers, work in TV and film, go to Unitec and become a designer.... etc etc

I know heaps who have used pot for inspiration in their lives, and moved on... so its not all bad. So many people I come across have a bit tucked away that they hardly use, till I show up that is:shit:

Take pot away because of a few unlucky souls with bad starts to life, and addicts will just start drinking or get on the P.

They need something, give them something 100% non toxic and safe that saves the state money in the long run.

Cannabis is also an anti cancer substance, and added to a 'bad life' often protects the abuser from organ related harm related to comorbid addictions such as junk food, and addictions to harmful substances like grog, tobacco, coffee etc etc

My pharmacist nana used to administer cannabis to the sick. For hundreds of years cannabis was the #1 medicine in the world....

I dont think it helps with stupidity or low intelligence, those people will have to stay that way I'm afraid, and may be better not to go near cannabis.

Also peeps with tumultuous lives full of conflict and drama, cannabis may exacerbate their poor spiritual state. However, it may also assist with some 'bad lives' by offering a different perspective.....or placing them to the side of society rather than being a cat amongst the pigeons

mashman

3rd October 2011, 16:42

They weren't running a one off sausage sizzle, they were running a country.

They'd likely fuck that up too :innocent:

puddytat

3rd October 2011, 16:44

However, it may also assist with some 'bad lives' by offering a different perspective.....or placing them to the side of society rather than being a cat amongst the pigeons

I can vouch for that:yes:

rainman

3rd October 2011, 16:46

The effect of substitution is too strong now also. If the rate of petrol suddenly spiked we would almost immediately find a cheaper substitute.

Like what?

scissorhands

3rd October 2011, 17:47

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnZb5wi_jsU&feature=player_embedded

mashman

3rd October 2011, 17:51

ha ha haaaaaaa... bloody awful that they got let off... but damn that was funny.

gatch

3rd October 2011, 20:09

It is of my opinion that cannabis should be decriminalized.

Like any other drug it is fine, IF used in moderation and with consideration to your ability to handle the effects of the drug. It's like with anything that somebody else considers dangerous.. Drugs don't kill people, people kill people..

What I am failing to understand is how this can cause some of you people to get so upset with one another..

Winston001

3rd October 2011, 21:21

Douglas and his little group of cohorts from Treasury and the Reserve Bank were supposedly intelligent and highly educated people. In their highly paid jobs they were meant to understand the implications of their actions globally and long term. They weren't running a one off sausage sizzle, they were running a country.
.

I know its OT but here's my 2 cents.

Monetarist economics as propounded by the Chicago School said that people act rationally and predictably to free market signals. For example, if you were billed for an A&E visit, you'd choose your own doctor instead or look after yourself.

It didn't work that way. People still crowded hospital emergency departments then refused to pay.

What the Fourth Labour Government overlooked was that we had a culture of state dependence and it would take a generation to unlearn that - not 3 years.

Coolz

4th October 2011, 05:15

The road to Perdition?......or Enlightenment?247872

StoneY

4th October 2011, 05:59

This thread has completely lost its focus

Just free the bloody weed and get the fuck on with life for gods sake

oneofsix

4th October 2011, 06:02

This thread has completely lost its focus

Just free the bloody weed and get the fuck on with life for gods sake

Thanks for the first laugh of the day. Your name plus comment make a brilliant association :laugh:

StoneY

4th October 2011, 06:05

Thanks for the first laugh of the day. Your name plus comment make a brilliant association :laugh:

Cheers bro - pleased I could brighten this gloomy Tuesday morning somewhat for you :yes:

scissorhands

4th October 2011, 07:33

The party faithful released a derail memo, when the walls came crashing down
The jester stole the emperors clothes
While faking a sycophantic admiring of his UN crown
The people cheered the stoners
75% at least they say
The other 25% spat their dummies
Because they could not continue their prohibitionist ways

dedicated to all the good NZ folks struggling with state sanctioned programming, from their bad big daddies

http://cricketsoda.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/whos-your-daddy-darth-vader-shirt.gif

Zedder

4th October 2011, 07:48

I know its OT but here's my 2 cents.

Monetarist economics as propounded by the Chicago School said that people act rationally and predictably to free market signals. For example, if you were billed for an A&E visit, you'd choose your own doctor instead or look after yourself.

It didn't work that way. People still crowded hospital emergency departments then refused to pay.

What the Fourth Labour Government overlooked was that we had a culture of state dependence and it would take a generation to unlearn that - not 3 years.

They "overlooked" many things Winston. If they weren't Kiwis, I could see how they could've got the NZ ethos wrong but they were born and breed here.

avgas

4th October 2011, 08:00

The road to Perdition?......or Enlightenment?247872
Neverneverland

Zedder

4th October 2011, 13:53

The road to Perdition?......or Enlightenment?247872

Depends how ya roll.....

blackdog

4th October 2011, 13:59

Depends how ya roll.....

With Zig Zags.

Zedder

4th October 2011, 14:08

With Zig Zags.

That is an option indeed.

mashman

4th October 2011, 16:14

This GOVT has completely lost its focus

Just free the bloody weed and get the fuck on with life for gods sake

fixed for ya :)

scissorhands

4th October 2011, 22:46

Emeritus Professor Lester Grinspoon from Harvard Medical School, believes
that Cannabis will be the world's most important medical drug in the 21st
century. The reason cannabis is such an effective medicine, with thousands
of years of use, is because it contains over 60 active therapeutic
compounds. The cannabis plant can be breed for different levels of these
cannabinoids, and specific strains have been developed to treat specific
ailments, such as ADHD. Scientists can also isolate specific compounds in
cannabis to create unique new medicines.

The scientific and lay literature of the medical effectiveness of cannabis
is extensive. There are numerous conclusive studies which show that
cannabis reduces the growth of cancer tumors, including studies conducted
at the University of Otago. Some conditions like Glaucoma, can only be
effectively treated with cannabis. When made into a skin balm, cannabis is
an effective remedy for both Arthritis and Melanoma.

Only the most heartless and uncaring members of parliament could
vote against the compassionate use of cannabis. Already the hard-line USA has approved medical marijuana in many states. Not to follow suit here would cause outrage throughout the wider New Zealand community,
not to mention years of needless suffering for thousands of people.

75% of NZers want cannabis decriminalised!!

scissorhands

4th October 2011, 23:03

http://i56.tinypic.com/2yuzm29.jpg

oldrider

5th October 2011, 09:42

Exactly ... "DUPLICITY" ... more destructive than nuclear bombs and it abounds freely in our (NZ) society! :brick:

oneofsix

5th October 2011, 09:54

There has and there will always be a place for drugs in society. The words that were missing was "the abuse of".

mashman

5th October 2011, 16:14

Already the hard-line USA has approved medical marijuana in many states. Not to follow suit here would cause outrage throughout the wider New Zealand community

Aye, although I reckon we should be blazing the trail and not trailing the US :yes:

Exactly ... "DUPLICITY" ... more destructive than nuclear bombs and it abounds freely in our (NZ) society! :brick:

heh, Weapons of Mass Duplicity.

StoneY

7th October 2011, 06:03

Thread dead? Bugger

oldrider

7th October 2011, 08:33

Thread dead? Bugger

Subject is not though ..... long long way to go before that's dead! :facepalm:

scissorhands

7th October 2011, 10:47

I could have shagged a hot French chick I met last night at The Daktory.

If I wasnt such an aspie retard:violin:

Maybe if I wasnt a stoner? no, all the other ADHD stoners were swooping in...... its just me and my fucking autism, meh:violin:

mashman

7th October 2011, 19:41

Looks like the US aren't happy with medical marijuana anymore (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gEfLS4nsu5SOC5c17373Mw5jKz-g?docId=408ddc354df4467faec65085407b2038)

and it looks like they're using the Inland Revenue as an excuse (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/the-pot-republic-social-issues/a-crushing-blow-to-medical-marijuana-dispensaries/)

Hey ho.

mashman

13th October 2011, 17:39

heh heh heh (http://nz.lifestyle.yahoo.com/general/features/article/-/10457908/mums-addicted-to-diet-coke/) ... I see not much has changed in the last 20 years... Diet Coke :rofl:

Flip

13th October 2011, 18:00

Well I always thought Don Brash was a idiot.

Why in the hell would Act supporters get behind this.

Oh why do they call it "DOPE"?:shutup:

mashman

13th October 2011, 18:46

Oh why do they call it "DOPE"?:shutup:

Coz it's DOPE yaw, ugh (beat chest around heart area twice with right hand and flip you a 23 degree peace sign) :Punk: ...

Usarka

13th October 2011, 18:52

Oh why do they call it "DOPE"?:shutup:

Same reason ciggarettes are called fags!

mashman

13th October 2011, 18:55

Same reason ciggarettes are called fags!

and our PM is called Right Honourable

StoneY

14th October 2011, 05:26

Passing to the left

DMNTD

14th October 2011, 05:59

Oh why do they call it "DOPE"?:shutup:

...because if you smoke too much of it you become one.
Hey...why do they call 'it' PISS?
:corn:

imdying

14th October 2011, 09:02

Stop fucking up the rotation man :shifty:

avgas

14th October 2011, 10:21

and our PM is called Right Honourable
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3OfebMWQ2m4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Teflon

14th October 2011, 18:12

Fuck weed, Krokodil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yfd_7jrnMk) is my new drug of choice.

Mad-V2

14th October 2011, 18:18

THAT is a bad trip!
If he had a joint he wouldn't have any pain and might get his appetite back.

StoneY

25th October 2011, 02:21

Fresh one - off to the right this time, keep up peoples!

mashman

29th October 2011, 14:17

1 guy, 1 garage? All that potential tax $$$ up in smoke (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/11034610/28-year-old-to-appear-in-court-over-cannabis-charges/) :innocent:

Usarka

30th October 2011, 07:23

It would stimulate the economy too. Sales of consumables such as mint choc chip ice cream, doritos, pizza would all go through the roof.

mashman

30th October 2011, 10:58

It would stimulate the economy too. Sales of consumables such as mint choc chip ice cream, doritos, pizza would all go through the roof.

add a food tax on top of that lot too and :shit:

scumdog

31st October 2011, 18:07

It would stimulate the economy too. Sales of consumables such as mint choc chip ice cream, doritos, pizza would all go through the roof.

And the dental industry will boom as a result.

That is if the pot-smokers can remember their appointments...:shutup:

StoneY

1st November 2011, 05:31

And the dental industry will boom as a result.

That is if the pot-smokers can remember their appointments...:shutup:

Wha...???? Appointment.....mmmmmm????......where?

oldrider

1st November 2011, 18:19

OK so the current situation is not working with regard to drugs, surely that is a given.

Why is it not working?

There is so much legislation and there are so many people in so many sectors employed to make it all work, which ones are failing?

I agree with Brash on this but I am so far removed from the drug scene, how would I know? How does anybody else know?

What do people like the Police, who deal with sharp end of the problem think?

Of all the political parties I am most comfortable with http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/policies/drugs/ their position on drugs!

If we had to wait them to become the government and make a change it would probably never eventuate so what are we actually going to do about it? :confused:

mashman

1st November 2011, 19:38

If we had to wait them to become the government and make a change it would probably never eventuate so what are we actually going to do about it? :confused:

Get stoned and think about it for a while... then forget what we were thinking about and whilst lamenting an empty fridge, we'll draw parallels between the empty fridge and the likelihood that it'll fill itself, being about as likely as the neysayers allowing those who like to "smoke" to be allowed to do so without risking their liberty... that and they're both cold and empty.

StoneY

1st November 2011, 19:41

All bullshit aside.
Pot makes ya get the munchies..... ergo, I am fat.
The only sin I see in Cannabis is the fact it makes a healthy appetite work overtime........ there is less chance of cancer than cigarettes, and to date I believe the only death in history attributed to Cannabis smoking was uncle Bob.

Just legalize it, harden the penalties on the manufactured narcotics and party pill shit etc.....

Tax from Pot would boost the economy, and anyone thinking otherwise is blind, deaf and retarded.
Look what the levy rises did for ACC it went from profitable to uber fat bloated accounts so full of money Nick the Dick can't use it all so had to give some back to the treasury.

Now imagine the 15-20% of NZ's adult society that indulge either regularly or just once a month on Saturday night.......
Licensed, approved, chemical free and taxable.............
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$
2000 more cops within 2 years to do the REAL work (and I don't mean handing out ACC flyers at rego checks).

Seriously...its 2011 not 1951 with wild wood weed causing massive drops in the legally sanctioned distillery revenue...........