Drug busts!

[FJRider]

I've made the following observations through my life (IMHO):

My answer.

*Mj is not addictive
How many years have you smoked it ... ???

*Mj is not a problem (legal issues aside)
Not a problem to you ... or anybody you know ... you mean ... ???

*Mj should be excluded in developmental years (as should alcohol).
It is excluded now. As is alcohol. (alchol is legal over 18)

*Mj is compatible with normal life, people can operate quite normally after using Mj
Perception of normality changes with it's regular use.

*Mj by itself does not lead to harder drugs
Human nature in some, wanting stronger drugs ... doesn't make it ok to use Mj though.

*Mj is far far less of a problem for society that either alcohol ot tobacco
Only when the full extent of it's use now with effective testing ... will show how much of a problem exists.

*Idiots give Mj a bad rep, you don't hear about the others
Thats all we need ... bigger and bigger idiots ... that dont even know they're idiots. Look at Akzle for instance.

*Idiots will always be idiots with or without Mj
So you know Akzle.

*Mj does not cause psyc problems, those people would have those problems anyway.
Cause, maybe not .. but adds to .... certainly.

*Mj is a very good natural medicine
So good it's illegal .... just because it's natural, doesn't make it good.

*Pharmaceutical companies have an interest in the Mj game...
And the reason is $$$$$

*Mj is often supplied by criminal groups, legalising Mj would minimise Mj user contact with those groups
That contact is half the fun of smoking it ... meeting all those hardened criminals.

*Mj has been used by many many people including leaders of societies since (probably) soon after man disovered fire.
It still doesn't make it legal.

*It seems cops are very quick to get abnormally very personally and offensively abusive on websites. Is this in defense of of one of the perks of their jobs? One of the easy sides of their jobs? I guess that's the type of person our force targets (or vice versa).
Perhaps ... because you, and they know ... it is an illegal activity. Their personal opinion on the drug doesn't make it any less legal.





I've also noted that no one mentioned the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the NZ police force spend flying around in helicopters for weeks and weeks at a time. I'd love to be paid to do that! How much does it cost to rent/ run a helicopter for an hour? Surely we could spend that money on something more worthwhile like reducing assaults and theft. (Oh, I suppose that's the dirty/ hard work for the force). Or on having fewer police and more productive members of society (i.e. producing food, making things, cleaning waterways, keeping foreign fishing vessels off our turf etc etc)

Think more of all that money put into the local economy ... and the benefit that money gave/gives ... to that local economy.





Let's not piss around with decriminalising Mj, just legalise it and be done with it! As a society we've wasted (:D) enough time and money "battling" Mj. The government should put the good money to some constructive uses like paying off overseas debt, rebuilding Christchurch, providing decent health care etc so we don't have to live as a third world country..

If people stopped growing it, and paid all the Goverment tax and fee's required now ... more money would be available for pubilc benefit. (or "wasted" on something else)
I very much doubt if the police/goverment battle against drug use, has in any way affected the funding of the Christchurch re-build.

[ducatilover]

whirly-bird birdly-whirling. (try saying that ten times really fast).

That's quite difficult, I think my career as a rapper just failed. Or is that rapist? Wait, I don't know.

MJ is devil hair, ya'll gonna die smoking that shit.:mellow:

[Madness]

My answer.
My response to your answer. I've borrowed Akzle's green seeing as I know how much you love it.

*Mj is not addictive
How many years have you smoked it ... ???
How is that a relevant question?

*Mj is not a problem (legal issues aside)
Not a problem to you ... or anybody you know ... you mean ... ???
The only problems associated with marijuana use are due to its legal status.

*Mj should be excluded in developmental years (as should alcohol).
It is excluded now. As is alcohol. (alchol is legal over 18)
And should be continued to be excluded following legalisation.

*Mj is compatible with normal life, people can operate quite normally after using Mj
Perception of normality changes with it's regular use.
And you say this after how many years of your own personal use?

*Mj by itself does not lead to harder drugs
Human nature in some, wanting stronger drugs ... doesn't make it ok to use Mj though.
Watch the video Horney1 linked to. The only link between Marijuana & harder drugs comes about as a result of its legal status.

*Mj is far far less of a problem for society that either alcohol ot tobacco
Only when the full extent of it's use now with effective testing ... will show how much of a problem exists.
Again, watch the video. There are opinions included from people far more qualified than yourself on this matter.

*Idiots give Mj a bad rep, you don't hear about the others
Thats all we need ... bigger and bigger idiots ... that dont even know they're idiots.
We know you're an idiot. Your posts on this subject just reinforce this.

*Idiots will always be idiots with or without Mj
See above.
See above.

*Mj does not cause psyc problems, those people would have those problems anyway.
Cause, maybe not .. but adds to .... certainly.
Just as alcohol does?

*Mj is a very good natural medicine
So good it's illegal .... just because it's natural, doesn't make it good.
Watch the video.

*Pharmaceutical companies have an interest in the Mj game...
And the reason is $$$$$
The pharmaceutical industry stands to lose billions, rather than make a single dollar from legalisation.

*Mj is often supplied by criminal groups, legalising Mj would minimise Mj user contact with those groups
That contact is half the fun of smoking it ... meeting all those hardened criminals.
Whatever turns you on. (See what I did there?)

*Mj has been used by many many people including leaders of societies since (probably) soon after man disovered fire.
It still doesn't make it legal.
No, only a change in Law will make it legal :facepalm:

*It seems cops are very quick to get abnormally very personally and offensively abusive on websites. Is this in defense of of one of the perks of their jobs? One of the easy sides of their jobs? I guess that's the type of person our force targets (or vice versa).
Perhaps ... because you, and they know ... it is an illegal activity. Their personal opinion on the drug doesn't make it any less legal.
Perhaps it's because they can see the hypocrisy in the current situation & struggle to maintain the official line without becoming unduly personally offensive & abusive?

Think more of all that money put into the local economy ... and the benefit that money gave/gives ... to that local economy.
Think of the millions of dollars that's going into the pockets of Marijuana growers & sellers that if legalised would go into legitimate business & the improvement of the lives of the under-priveliged. This would far exceed the benefits generated from hiring the odd helicopter, if that's what you meant?

If people stopped growing it, and paid all the Goverment tax and fee's required now ... more money would be available for pubilc benefit. (or "wasted" on something else)
I very much doubt if the police/goverment battle against drug use, has in any way affected the funding of the Christchurch re-build.
Think of how many additional police hours could be spent on issues like family violence, burglary & anti-social behaviour if Marijuana were legalised.



Seriously people, watch the video. Thanks Horney1 for posting it.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MESZh-_uyUQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[FJRider]

"Originally re-posted by Madness"

My answer.

*Mj is not addictive
How many years have you smoked it ... ???
How is that a relevant question?
It could be ... regular smoking over a number of years could be interpreted as it being addictive.

*Mj is not a problem (legal issues aside)
Not a problem to you ... or anybody you know ... you mean ... ???
The only problems associated with marijuana use are due to its legal status.
That you are aware of.

*Mj should be excluded in developmental years (as should alcohol).
It is excluded now. As is alcohol. (alchol is legal over 18)
And should be continued to be excluded following legalisation.
It is now, and will continue to be. It's illegal.

*Mj is compatible with normal life, people can operate quite normally after using Mj
Perception of normality changes with it's regular use.
And you say this after how many years of your own personal use?
I dont smoke. Is it your perception it's normal ... ???

*Mj by itself does not lead to harder drugs
Human nature in some, wanting stronger drugs ... doesn't make it ok to use Mj though.
Watch the video Horney1 linked to. The only link between Marijuana & harder drugs comes about as a result of its legal status.
No need to watch. It's illegal to use the drug in this country. NO VIDEO will change that anytime soon.

*Mj is far far less of a problem for society that either alcohol ot tobacco
Only when the full extent of it's use now with effective testing ... will show how much of a problem exists.
Again, watch the video. There are opinions included from people far more qualified than yourself on this matter.
It's still illegal. An opinion of a doctor or myself will not change that anytime soon.

*Idiots give Mj a bad rep, you don't hear about the others
Thats all we need ... bigger and bigger idiots ... that dont even know they're idiots.
We know you're an idiot. Your posts on this subject just reinforce this.
You are entitled to you opinion. That wont make the drug legal.

*Idiots will always be idiots with or without Mj
See above.

SEE ABOVE

*Mj does not cause psyc problems, those people would have those problems anyway.
Cause, maybe not .. but adds to .... certainly.
Just as alcohol does?
IT is legal. And those that have serious alcohol issues can be forbidden to use that too.

*Mj is a very good natural medicine
So good it's illegal .... just because it's natural, doesn't make it good.
Watch the video.
Nah. No point. The drug is illegal, I dont use it. Nor do I intend to in the future. Regardless of it's legality.

*Pharmaceutical companies have an interest in the Mj game...
And the reason is $$$$$
The pharmaceutical industry stands to lose billions, rather than make a single dollar from legalisation.
Swings and roundabouts ... lose money here, gain money there. Such is big business.

*Mj is often supplied by criminal groups, legalising Mj would minimise Mj user contact with those groups
That contact is half the fun of smoking it ... meeting all those hardened criminals.
Whatever turns you on. (See what I did there?)
Nah ... must be the dope (see what I did there ?)

*Mj has been used by many many people including leaders of societies since (probably) soon after man disovered fire.
It still doesn't make it legal.
No, only a change in Law will make it legal
Funny that. But for now ... IT"S ILLEGAL.

*It seems cops are very quick to get abnormally very personally and offensively abusive on websites. Is this in defense of of one of the perks of their jobs? One of the easy sides of their jobs? I guess that's the type of person our force targets (or vice versa).
Perhaps ... because you, and they know ... it is an illegal activity. Their personal opinion on the drug doesn't make it any less legal.
Perhaps it's because they can see the hypocrisy in the current situation & struggle to maintain the official line without becoming unduly personally offensive & abusive?
Perhaps ... but that is included in their personal opinions ... and their personal choices ... THEY choose to make.

Think more of all that money put into the local economy ... and the benefit that money gave/gives ... to that local economy.
Think of the millions of dollars that's going into the pockets of Marijuana growers & sellers that if legalised would go into legitimate business & the improvement of the lives of the under-priveliged. This would far exceed the benefits generated from hiring the odd helicopter, if that's what you meant?
Even THOSE millions of $$$ are fed into the local economy ... the Bro's gotta spend ... eh ... !!!

If people stopped growing it, and paid all the Goverment tax and fee's required now ... more money would be available for pubilc benefit. (or "wasted" on something else)
I very much doubt if the police/goverment battle against drug use, has in any way affected the funding of the Christchurch re-build.
Think of how many additional police hours could be spent on issues like family violence, burglary & anti-social behaviour if Marijuana were legalised.
If Marijuana was legalised ... maybe ... more hours WOULD be needed.

[Madness]

Narrow-minded people such as FJ will continue to buy into the ridiculous situation that is the illegality of a naturally occuring plant. Oh well, no suprises there. No point in replying to his above post, his narrow minded post doesn't warrant a reply.

I did watch the video and learned a few things from doing so. For example, I never knew that Heroin was invented by pharmaceutical giant Bayer. The video also showed an interview with a MS sufferer and the impact that a samll amount of Marijuana ingestion had on him was astounding.

[Subike]

this thread was interesting reading,
till those large postings by our southern person......

Maybe he might stop trying to fight a loosing battle

[scumdog]

Narrow-minded people such as FJ will continue to buy into the ridiculous situation that is the illegality of a naturally occuring plant. Oh well, no suprises there. No point in replying to his above post, his narrow minded post doesn't warrant a reply.

I did watch the video and learned a few things from doing so. For example, I never knew that Heroin was invented by pharmaceutical giant Bayer. The video also showed an interview with a MS sufferer and the impact that a samll amount of Marijuana ingestion had on him was astounding.

Take all of the freakin' drugs AND alcohol out of this world and I'd be happier and my job would be easier...:yes:

[Madness]

Take all of the freakin' drugs AND alcohol out of this world and I'd be happier and my job would be easier...:yes:

You'd be redundant.

[Kickaha]

You'd be redundant.

Nah there's plenty of people that are just as stupid without drugs and alcohol

[scumdog]

Nah there's plenty of people that are just as stupid without drugs and alcohol

Ain't THAT the truth bro!:woohoo:

[Madness]

Nah there's plenty of people that are just as stupid without drugs and alcohol

You refer to Drew so often I'm starting to think you're in love with him.

[Akzle]

Seriously people, watch the video. Thanks Horney1 for posting it.
can't. wish i could now. for literature: "the history of marajuana in NZ" (if you can find it - supression o f free speech is a bitch)




It could be ... regular smoking over a number of years could be interpreted as it being addictive.
like... driving over a number of years could be interpreted, or. eating. or. breathing. or posting stupid shit on KB or standing up to piss. or...

The only problems associated with marijuana use are due to its legal status.
That you are aware of.
oh please. what other problems does google say are caused by marajuana?

It is now, and will continue to be. It's illegal.
that the best you got?


...It's illegal to use the drug in this country....

...It's still illegal.

...That wont make the drug legal.

...See above.

...SEE ABOVE

...The drug is illegal

...But for now ... IT"S ILLEGAL.

Think of how many additional police hours could be spent on issues like family violence, burglary & anti-social behaviour if Marijuana were legalised.
If Marijuana was legalised ... maybe ... more hours WOULD be needed.
bahahahahaha. full retard ahead!

sorry madness. i know he's not worth it, but when so little effort is required to make him look like a cock. well, why wouldn't you =)


. .

[scumdog]

can't. wish i could now. for literature: "the history of marajuana in NZ" (if you can find it - supression o f free speech is a bitch)



sorry madness. i know he's not worth it, but when so little effort is required to make him look like a cock. well, why wouldn't you =)


. .

Vomit......

[FJRider]

I did watch the video and learned a few things from doing so. For example, I never knew that Heroin was invented by pharmaceutical giant Bayer. The video also showed an interview with a MS sufferer and the impact that a samll amount of Marijuana ingestion had on him was astounding.

Pick the eye's out of a lot of drugs ... and you get an effect not intended by (but often known of by) the manufacturer. "P" for example ... thats getting popular too I hear. Any word when it may become legal .... ??? Or ... if marijuana is made legal ... will that make P disappear ... ???
Fix one problem ... create another.

There have been instances where Marijuana use for medical use HAS been approved in this country.
But that wont make it available for general, free use ... anytime soon. Unless you suffer from MS and apply for use of the drug.

In which case ... I'm going to be the least of your problems ...

[Akzle]

I never knew that Heroin was invented by pharmaceutical giant Bayer.

uhh.
nurp. they may have been the first to intravenously apply it tho... the jews came in handy for a lot of shit ehh.

it were dem camel jockeys i thunk: the afghanis had dope in their' sheeshas, the chinkos had opium since the day, too.
(opium=dope=morphine=heroin=codeine)

[avgas]

TL: DR
Interpretation Act 1999: (THAT'S NEW ZEALAND LEGISLATION: "THE RULES")
"person includes a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an
unincorporated body"
Which is correct, 100%. But it does not state what a corporation is. It states how a person can include a corporation. Don't have the paperwork next to me to quote.....but here is what a corporation is (you will notice every line says the same thing....:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a+corporation

Corporation = separate entity. This is also the definition in NZ Biz, Group and Assoc law. Look it up if you don't believe me. Should even be in your fancy law dictionary.


Mj is not addictive
Or on having fewer police and more productive members of society (i.e. producing food, making things, cleaning waterways, keeping foreign fishing vessels off our turf etc etc)
Pretty much agree with everything else you have said. With the exception of the other 2 points above.
If its not addictive, quit. It is, it took me 14 days of going cold turkey, and it sucked. However I could say the same about other things I am STILL addicted to, like caffeine etc. But they are legal so its not a problem. Now would I go back to smoking it if it were legal - no, for no other reason than the fact that when I was quitting I kept telling myself that I was better than it.
While MJ chemically is not addictive. It is a habit based addiction with a chemically proven high reward. Its much worse than a chemically addictive drug - because you WANT to use it. You have personal incentive to use it.
But prove me wrong, quit and stay off it for 1 year. Then you can go back to it when and if you want.

As for making cops "productive". Sorry we already have unemployed who sit around and smoke dope. Why did you think that cops would stop their job and clear waterways? We can't get people with nothing better to do, to get off their arse and do it.

[Madness]

Pick the eye's out of a lot of drugs ... and you get an effect not intended by (but often known of by) the manufacturer.

No, Heroin itself was invented and invented by Bayer. Not part of another drug but Heroin itself.


"P" for example ... thats getting popular too I hear. Any word when it may become legal .... ??? Or ... if marijuana is made legal ... will that make P disappear ... ???
Fix one problem ... create another.

Who's suggesting we should legalise P?, a drug that is obtained by picking the eyes out of legal cold remedies that drug companies make millions of dollars from each year. That drug, invented by the Nazi's if I'm not mistaken, is not a naturally occuring plant with scores upon scores of positive medicinal benefits & no adverse health effects amongst the majority of people who use it, unlike Marijuana.


There have been instances where Marijuana use for medical use HAS been approved in this country. But that wont make it available for general, free use ... anytime soon. Unless you suffer from MS and apply for use of the drug.

No, it won't be legal here anytime soon due to political hypocracy & narrow-mindedness of a lot of our (predominantly older (read that as you like)) population.


In which case I'm going to be the least of your problems ...

You already are. In fact, you're not a problem to me at all.

[Madness]

uhh.
nurp. they may have been the first to intravenously apply it tho... the jews came in handy for a lot of shit ehh.

it were dem camel jockeys i thunk: the afghanis had dope in their' sheeshas, the chinkos had opium since the day, too.
(opium=dope=morphine=heroin=codeine)

You really should get proper internet. Sell me some weed & you could afford it.

The video that Horney1 posted showed that Bayer invented & marketed Heroin as a medicine to combat Morphine addiction :facepalm:

[Akzle]

Narrow-minded people such as FJ


Which is correct, 100%. But it does not state what a corporation is. It states how a person can include a corporation.
in legal sp33k= "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others." which means that a "PERSON" (your all-caps "name")= a person= IS a corporation.


No, Heroin itself was invented and invented by Bayer. Not part of another drug but Heroin itself.

(opium=dope=morphine=heroin=codeine)= diacetyl-morphine, if i 'membas right.


Who's suggesting we should legalise P?
me


You really should get proper internet. Sell me some weed & you could afford it.

The video that Horney1 posted showed that Bayer invented & marketed Heroin as a medicine to combat Morphine addiction :facepalm:

(opium=dope=morphine=heroin=codeine)= diacetyl-morphine, if i 'membas right.
that would be illegalz bro. (plus. i really am a hillbilly, getting a phone line dragged out here would cost a few grand. my shit's good, but it aint THAT good.) ><!

[Madness]

that would be illegalz bro. (plus. i really am a hillbilly, getting a phone line dragged out here would cost a few grand. my shit's good, but it aint THAT good.) ><!

I was going to ask for tick anyway :yes:

[Akzle]

Who's suggesting we should legalise P?,

this guy (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/67295-Legalise-Crystal-Meth?p=1429550#post1429550)
. .

[scumdog]

this guy (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/67295-Legalise-Crystal-Meth?p=1429550#post1429550)
. .

??!:blink:

[flyingcrocodile46]

??!:blink:

Excellent. Back on topic :rofl:

[Crasherfromwayback]

How's this...

http://cultso.com/artist-takes-every-drug-known-to-man-draws-self-portraits-after-each-use/

[Laava]

How's this...

http://cultso.com/artist-takes-every-drug-known-to-man-draws-self-portraits-after-each-use/

That guy is seriously talented...and fucked up!
I loved the mushroom one, but sadly this guy if he wasn't already will be a psycho ward loiterer.

[Crasherfromwayback]

That guy is seriously talented...and fucked up!
I loved the mushroom one, but sadly this guy if he wasn't already will be a psycho ward loiterer.

Yeah he certainly gave himself a severe thrashing.

[Madness]

How's this...

http://cultso.com/artist-takes-every-drug-known-to-man-draws-self-portraits-after-each-use/

Some of those portraits bear a striking resemblance to a certain Harley-riding KBer, randomly enough.

[Boob Johnson]

Yeah the cops could even make a profit by setting up tinny houses.
Least you could lay a formal complaint if the tinnies were a bit stink :laugh:

[Road kill]

Least you could lay a formal complaint if the tinnies were a bit stink :laugh:

Thought they was supposed to stink:facepalm:

[Boob Johnson]

Thought they was supposed to stink:facepalm:
The "other" stink! :facepalm:

[avgas]

in legal sp33k= "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others." which means that a "PERSON" (your all-caps "name")= a person= IS a corporation.
But a CORPORATION CAN NOT BE A PERSON.....

see here in your precious legal dictionary http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corporation

Note also that if you use your exclusion principle above. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. That it is latin so its back to front in terms of "meaning". It (as the name states) is the exclusion principle, not the inclusion principle. So you can't state that a person contains a corporation - you must state that if only one thing is covered under inclusion - then all else are excluded.
i.e. if the inclusion of "PERSON" is the exclusion of all others.
Not that a corporation can have multiple people under inclusion, so the firm name is stated with the identified members in following text. If no members of the corporation are liable then the corporation itself is liable as it is its own entity. Therefore only the corporation is named.

If you don't believe me then why can't we get euthanasia in NZ - it would be very easy to argue that the board associated with "JOHN SMITH" have performed to a low level standard of care, and the corporation therefore will be placed into liquidation.
These are all things than can be done with a corporation. So is people are considered corporations, it should be legal. Could it perhaps be that a corporation is not a person? or a collection of people but its own entity?

[Akzle]

How's this...

http://cultso.com/artist-takes-every-drug-known-to-man-draws-self-portraits-after-each-use/
that is quite impressive. considering he managed to actually DO anything after some of those drugs.


But a CORPORATION CAN NOT BE A PERSON.....

see here in your precious legal dictionary http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corporation

Note also that if you use your exclusion principle above. ...

If you don't believe me then why can't we get euthanasia in NZ ...

a person is a corporation. interpretation act. (that's NZ legislation.) i've posted this before. i will not again just for the benefit of the daft.

"my precious law dictionary" is not online. it's leather and has paper and stuff. i do not believe that the legislators use the internet as a source, as you and figgy seem to.
if they do. you have bigger problems than defining words. which, funny enough, is exactly what the INTERPRETATION ACT is for.

i never cited an exclusion principle. i cited the legal maxim that "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others". i'm sure your internet will tell you all about it.

"why can't we get euthenasia"
wow. read some legislation. it's all in there.
we also can't get books on euthanasia, or how the holocaust never happened, or one called "sensemillia". anything by greg hallet will get you red flagged...
why can't we get these? because your duly elected socialist leaders have decided that you shouldn't have them.

if YOU don't believe ME then how can the "crown" dictate what a man who was presumably born free, must do, even against his will... take his kids, say how fast he can drive, take the money off the sweat of his back etc etc etc.
hrm. how can they do that? legally, or lawfully?

[Akzle]

it seems you're missing the fundamental fact that you are not a person, legally speaking, the men you see in the street are not persons, they guy at the gassy is not a person, noone on the bus, dole, no CEO, banker or politician is a person.

a PERSON is a LEGAL construct, it has nothing to do with a skeleton, organs or sentient consciousness.

google or online-law-dictionary "capitus diminutio maxima". this is the last time i will say this. i feel i need to state that, for the benfit of the daft.

if you have any intelligent queries, can cite a source that is not the internet/wikipedia/google, or any constructive discourse to add, feel free.
elsewise. good day to you.

[scumdog]

it seems you're missing the fundamental fact that you are not a person, legally speaking, the men you see in the street are not persons, they guy at the gassy is not a person, noone on the bus, dole, no CEO, banker or politician is a person.

a PERSON is a LEGAL construct, it has nothing to do with a skeleton, organs or sentient consciousness.

google or online-law-dictionary "capitus diminutio maxima". this is the last time i will say this. i feel i need to state that, for the benfit of the daft.

if you have any intelligent queries, can cite a source that is not the internet/wikipedia/google, or any constructive discourse to add, feel free.
elsewise. good day to you.

:blink:Well, what can ya say to THAT!

[Crasherfromwayback]

that is quite impressive. considering he managed to actually DO anything after some of those drugs.



I agree 100%

[FJRider]

:blink:Well, what can ya say to THAT!

Try googling "Person" ... I did.

Person

n pl Persons
1. an individual human being
2. the body of a human being, sometimes including his or her clothing guns hidden on his person
3. (Linguistics / Grammar) a grammatical category into which pronouns and forms of verbs are subdivided depending on whether they refer to the speaker, the person addressed, or some other individual, thing, etc.
4. (Law) a human being or a corporation recognized in law as having certain rights and obligations
5. (Philosophy) Philosophy a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of both a body and a mind or soul
6. Archaic a character or role; guise


It says ... what I thought it WOULD say ... sounds fair to me.

[mashman]

NZ study links cannabis to memory loss (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14681057/nz-study-links-cannabis-to-memory-loss/)

OMG that's what happened to my blisteringly high IQ and intellect. It ain't like people's IQ's drop or anyfink based on what they end up doing for a living and are constantly exposed to :blink:... but I guess the study says that that's what happens. Odd given that I can remember feck loads more than my missus can about things... apart from special occassions that is :innocent:

[ducatilover]

NZ study links cannabis to memory loss (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14681057/nz-study-links-cannabis-to-memory-loss/)

OMG that's what happened to my blisteringly high IQ and intellect. It ain't like people's IQ's drop or anyfink based on what they end up doing for a living and are constantly exposed to :blink:... but I guess the study says that that's what happens. Odd given that I can remember feck loads more than my missus can about things... apart from special occassions that is :innocent:

It's true

I'm glad I don't smoke it, let alone be a heavy user then, because I have a shit memory (unless it's numbers or bikes, I'm good with numbers)

[avgas]

a PERSON is a LEGAL construct, it has nothing to do with a skeleton, organs or sentient consciousness.
Come on now, make it harder. Even you legal folk know "IS" is a statement of fact. As you below........ turns out there is more than one definition of a person. Even in law.


google or online-law-dictionary "capitus diminutio maxima".
Google where it came from and why. Name was on the basis of title and heritage. It was in capitals due to remove confusion. Note that however name is the same between the legal construct "JOHN SMITH" and the person John Smith. Unless you can show me that "JOHN SMITH" was penalized for something and John Smith was not charged?
Do remember that the Romans carried their titles with them as their identity.


Try googling "Person" ... I did.

Person

n pl Persons
1. an individual human being
2. the body of a human being, sometimes including his or her clothing guns hidden on his person
3. (Linguistics / Grammar) a grammatical category into which pronouns and forms of verbs are subdivided depending on whether they refer to the speaker, the person addressed, or some other individual, thing, etc.
4. (Law) a human being or a corporation recognized in law as having certain rights and obligations
5. (Philosophy) Philosophy a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of both a body and a mind or soul
6. Archaic a character or role; guise


It says ... what I thought it WOULD say ... sounds fair to me.
My thoughts exactly. There is more than one law in the world. And even the legal ones get thrown out of court on occasion due to common sense.

[Akzle]

...
4. (Law) a human being or a corporation recognized in law as having certain rights and obligations...
holy shit. for once you've managed not to be a complete retard


Google where it came from and why. Name was on the basis of title and heritage. It was in capitals due to remove confusion. Note that however name is the same between the legal construct "JOHN SMITH" and the person John Smith.
...Do remember that the Romans carried their titles with them as their identity.

...My thoughts exactly. There is more than one law in the world. And even the legal ones get thrown out of court on occasion due to common sense.<- :killingme
very little in court, or legislation is "common sense" :lol:
1) you may, or may not, accept JOINDER between the fiction and the man. the fiction was created by certification and registration at berth. (legally, "register" is to abandon" so your parents abandoned their natural authority over the PERSON., thus the state (to whom your person was abandoned) has the authority over the PERSON, or corporate entity, but not you as a human, unless you accept joinder, and take responsibility for the corporation (SMITH, JOHN Q.))

when did YOU as a knowing adult (legally interested party), sign up to take the rights and responsibilities of your corporate mirror?

2) what confusion is removed by having two entities with the same title? but different demarcations?
glad you're following down the roman path..cannon law etc. keep reading.
capitus diminutio was how they legally traded SLAVES. obviously noone has lawful right to do that to another human, but they're only trading in corporate certificates... if the humans accept the joinder to their corporate certificate well, that's their own dumb-legal-fault innit?

3) once upon a time a name was a powerful thing. it identified you with a profession, clan, or place. however there is a difference between what you are known as, and the legal construct.
the things you are told are "your identity" are: your slave name (cap. dim. max.); the "date of berth" (incorporation); your occupation; and lesser, your residence/address.
funny enough, these are usually the first three/four questions out of the mouths of those who enforce policy. innit?

now, in supplying those "details" you create joinder between you as you stand, (a free human) and a corporation, with rights and responsibilities assigned by legislation.
personally i reckon the rights god gave me, by my being born, are better than the rights the crown allows me, were i an incorporated fiction. so i choose to act under the former and renounce the latter.

4) there is not more than one "law" in the world. the "law" of the world binds every man, woman and child, race, color, creed, religion, belief, faith, occupation, territory, land area etc etc. drop an apple and it will fall, 10 times in 10, in russia as NZ as antarctica..
there are many different legislated jurisdictions in the world. thats why germanians can drive fast, but not badly, or they get fined. and new zealanders can drive badly, but not fast, or they get fined. there is no greater inherent risk, the laws of physics, gravity etc are equal in both places, but the little men with hats have made different choices for the masses.
that is why women can't drive in abjizzerstan (and innit the world a better place for THAT!?) but they can elsewhere. that's why stealing here, you get to waste police and court time, but little else, but stealing in arab-land, you loose appendages.

[FJRider]

holy shit. for once you've managed not to be a complete retard




There IS an ... OR .... did you miss that ... ???

[Akzle]

There IS an ... OR .... did you miss that ... ???



holy shit. for once you've managed not to be a complete retard

don't blow it now.

[FJRider]

don't blow it now.[/color]

What was I thinking ... A human being ... OR a Corporation.

You can't possibly be human.

[scumdog]

okay.
so you've probably heard about all these fabulous drug busts.
and how they've hauled some hundred thousand dollars in "crime money" and some tonnage of cannabis, and made a few hundred arrests in a ~6 month operation.

now, arbitrarily saying it takes 6 cops for 6 months per arrest, and using the 184 number that i read....and given that cops start at 50k/year. it starts to add up quick, just in man hours.

just how fucking economical is enforcing this anti-cannabis policy?

in terms of cost-benefit i'd say it's weighing fairly in the former and lacking in the latter.

but hey. drugs are bad, and cops are good. or something. right?


And THIS kiddies is where the crap started....and he hasn't stopped since.:pinch:

[Virago]

I may be a little naive, but I always though a drug bust was a stash hidden in a woman's cleavage.

[oldrider]

I may be a little naive, but I always though a drug bust was a stash hidden in a woman's cleavage.

Yes - you are a little naive! . :nya: but it's not the end of the world. :whistle:

[RDJ]

I may be a little naive, but I always though a drug bust was a stash hidden in a woman's cleavage.

If it is not, it definitely should be. We should always seek out simplification.