Weed legalised in 2 USA states [Archive]

xen

8th November 2012, 00:32

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/colorado-washington-pot-legalization-_n_2086023.html?ref=topbar

Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational marijuana in the prohibition era on Tuesday, dealing a major blow to the war on drugs. Medical marijuana was also legalized in Massachusetts, underlining long-running trends in public opinion toward more permissive attitudes on drugs.

"To put this into historical context, there is no historical context," said Tom Angell, spokesperson for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. "It's the first time any state has ever voted to legalize marijuana -- and two of them did it."

The votes marked a significant shift from decades of tough-on-crime policies that burned through $1 trillion in tax dollars over 40 years, led to the arrest of 850,000 Americans for marijuana law violations in 2010 alone, and fueled the rise of deadly drug cartels abroad. But even as pot reformers celebrated their long-sought victories, the threat of a confrontation with the federal government loomed.

Both ballot measures would legalize recreational marijuana use only for adults, and cannabis would remain a controlled substance under federal law.

Awesome news, can only hope this enlightened policy spreads quickly through the country. A real win for freedom today :woohoo:

unstuck

8th November 2012, 05:45

Fuckin aye.:niceone:

Usarka

8th November 2012, 13:04

8 percent of consumer electricity in california is used for growing pot.

Banditbandit

8th November 2012, 14:12

I thought this thread could do with some naked models too

http://www.cannabisculture.com/library/images/uploads/2608-nude_dudes.jpg

Tigadee

8th November 2012, 14:57

Not surprising... The people who voted to legalise pot probably grew up smoking it, and maybe their parents did too!

Banditbandit

8th November 2012, 16:11

Not surprising... The people who voted to legalise pot probably grew up smoking it, and maybe their parents did too!

Yeah .. and the ones who voted aganst it prolly went home and got pissed on good old alcohol ... and said what a great job they did oppossing chemicals that affect people ..

007XX

8th November 2012, 17:53

Not surprising... The people who voted to legalise pot probably grew up smoking it, and maybe their parents did too!

Just curious, but do you really seriously believe that?

mashman

8th November 2012, 18:30

Great news... and I rofld at the media portraying it as a major blow. Puntastic. Also rofld at the Justice Department concerning itself with potential tax collection issues. Wonder why.

Tigadee

8th November 2012, 19:18

Just curious, but do you really seriously believe that?

:psst: Only semi-seriously... I know that there are medicinal purposes for pot and all that, and it's the mildest of the harder drugs out there? But then alcohol is medicinal too...

Every time I feel a cold coming on, I take a good swig of whiskey and go to sleep. My theory is that since alcohol is used to sterilise surgical instruments, and germs primarily travel around our body via our bloodstream as does alcohol, so having elevated levels of alcohol in our bloodstream cleanses us of the filthy bacteria and viruses causing us ill.

Plus we get a good sleep, our other halves look better than ever for a while and we're incoherently happy. Win-win! :drinkup:

Glowerss

8th November 2012, 19:51

:psst: Only semi-seriously... I know that there are medicinal purposes for pot and all that, and it's the mildest of the harder drugs out there? But then alcohol is medicinal too...

Every time I feel a cold coming on, I take a good swig of whiskey and go to sleep. My theory is that since alcohol is used to sterilise surgical instruments, and germs primarily travel around our body via our bloodstream as does alcohol, so having elevated levels of alcohol in our bloodstream cleanses us of the filthy bacteria and viruses causing us ill.

Plus we get a good sleep, our other halves look better than ever for a while and we're incoherently happy. Win-win! :drinkup:

Strictly speaking, weed is harmless to us merkins. All it does is make us revert to our natural state! ( Lazy and fat with the hungry munchies :lol: ). In truth, if Bush had smoked more weed, the world would have been a better place :chase:

I don't do drugs in any capacity, but I've always thought banning weed was a bit silly in truth. Medically its basically harmless. Some journals claim it carries carcinogens but fuck what doesn't.

Only arguement I've seen against it really is that people seem to think that weed is a "gateway" drug. That if you smoke weed, you'll eventually go looking for more serious drugs. Sounds a bit rubbish really.

Waste of time and money trying to stop potheads. I'm glad at least 2 states have figured it out. Hopefully the federal govt. keeps out of it. I doubt it though. Republicans and the christians can't help themselves at times.

SMOKEU

8th November 2012, 20:19

scumdog

8th November 2012, 20:54

Most pot smokers started out with alcohol and tobacco.

Most pot-smokers I deal with seem to still also be on the alcohol, in fact virtually all of them..

But then I probably deal with the loser sector of the pot-smoking world...

SMOKEU

8th November 2012, 21:02

Most pot-smokers I deal with seem to still also be on the alcohol, in fact virtually all of them..

But then I probably deal with the loser sector of the pot-smoking world...

I know that due to your career you can't openly support legalizing cannabis, but I'm sure that in your experience drunk people seem to cause significantly more problems for you guys than a couple of stoners having a joint in the local park. You must know in the back of your mind that the current cannabis laws aren't always justified. I don't expect you to agree with me either on a public forum.

mashman

8th November 2012, 21:04

madandy

8th November 2012, 21:14

scumdog

8th November 2012, 21:18

I ocasionally enjoy a joint in the park with both black and white stoners. I particularly enjoy weed with a small amount of either rum or bourban. Not too much, mind you as it makes me a bit dizzy.

I crack up when in the company of Police who smoke cannabis when I think of the official policy on drugs :killingme

Same as me with company of Police who speed when I htink of the official policy on speeding.

We're both easily entertained eh....:rolleyes:

Glowerss

8th November 2012, 21:25

I know that due to your career you can't openly support legalizing cannabis, but I'm sure that in your experience drunk people seem to cause significantly more problems for you guys than a couple of stoners having a joint in the local park. You must know in the back of your mind that the current cannabis laws aren't always justified. I don't expect you to agree with me either on a public forum.

This is just observation from somebody who hasn't been in NZ too long (only 3-4 years now), but it seem to me that drinking causes NZ more money and causes more grief then smoking weed ever could. I feel genuinely terrible for the Auckland Popo who have to deal with that shit (drinking)on a daily basis. I cringe everytime one of those NZ cop shows comes on TV. It will almost inevitably be 80% of the show dealing with drunk bastards.

I'd be really interested to see what sort of costs in terms of medical/police wages drinking costs the country.

My gut feeling tells me a shit of a lot more then say, smoking does. And they've been banging on the last few months about trying to outlaw smoking in NZ.

Anyway, on topic, I reckon there's a big difference between cigs/alcohol--> weed then there is from weed to say cocaine. People are stupid and will always do stupid shit, but the average person this day and age I reckon knows that cannabis isn't really all that bad for you, and isn't physiologically addictive. And also knows that shit like meth/cocaine/heroine are hella addictive and really fucking bad for you.

madandy

8th November 2012, 21:25

I think its fair to say that these guys live inthe real world where its ok to show a little discretion when in the company of trustworthy souls and in a safe environment where boundaries are repected and limits left untested.

I dont have a problem with it as long as the discretion is shared fairly and with just consideration for true risk and safety etc etc.

jrandom

8th November 2012, 21:30

But then I probably deal with the loser sector of the pot-smoking world...

Ayup, exactly.

Although, certainly a lot of folk do tend to smoke weed and drink at the same time as a matter of course. I'm not sure that they ever stop to consider whether they're actually having fun, or whether they'd enjoy themselves more if they exercised a little restraint. They just do it because it's the done thing. Like kids who make a habit of drinking booze until they're cross-eyed and vomiting.

Me personally, alcohol + THC just knocks me out. I'm not a fan of the approach.

SMOKEU

8th November 2012, 21:31

Does the same logic stand for black and white kids having a joint in the park?

I can't even begin to answer that.

madandy

8th November 2012, 21:35

I can't even begin to answer that.

Of course you can. The implication is that the brown child may be x times more likely to be prosecuted whereas the white boy sent home with a warning...

HenryDorsetCase

8th November 2012, 22:01

Not surprising... The people who voted to legalise pot probably grew up smoking it, and maybe their parents did too!

Dude I am all for legalisation of it, and if it was legal it would not increase my consumption one iota: from zero to zero.

But from every reasonable and reasoned perspective prohibition simply does not work. So, take all the money spent on trying to enforce the unenforceable, and spend it on education, so people make better life choices, or whatever.

My view is that if you can afford to buy it, and if you dont fuck up anything other than yourself, then you should be free to stick anything in your body you want to. Just don't steal to fund a habit, etc.

The Swedish approach. Oh, you're a drug addict. Come to this clinic every morning, here is your free state supplied drugs, fill in this form,join this queue, here you go, next please. One of the things I read about it was that the deglamourisation of the process (likened to queuing up to renew your driver's licence, EVERY MORNING) had had a marked effect on the numbers of addicts.

SMOKEU

8th November 2012, 22:05

Of course you can. The implication is that the brown child may be x times more likely to be prosecuted whereas the white boy sent home with a warning...

I never said the person of colour was innocent.

HenryDorsetCase

8th November 2012, 22:08

Only arguement I've seen against it really is that people seem to think that weed is a "gateway" drug. That if you smoke weed, you'll eventually go looking for more serious drugs. Sounds a bit rubbish really.

Waste of time and money trying to stop potheads. I'm glad at least 2 states have figured it out. Hopefully the federal govt. keeps out of it. I doubt it though. Republicans and the christians can't help themselves at times.

the gateway is that to get weed you have to deal with drug dealers. When you realise that you have been lied to all this time, you think "Well shit, if they lied about that, how bad can crystal meth be? - and I know a dude who can get it for me, and the first one is free! - what could possibly go wrong".

the other thing is the "Value pyramid": weed at the bottom, more expensive stuff up the top. So

Think of the fact that the gangs that now make money from dealing have this large chunk of revenue taken away (I am all for it being legalised, taxed, and available for sale in the equivalent of liquor stores) then its a less attractive lifestyle choice, so, fewer and smaller gangs dealing hard drugs, so the po po can (as long as they get the fucking paperwork right and dont forge any search warrants) target those criminals more effectively. bada boom bada bing, everybody wins.

mashman

8th November 2012, 22:09

I can't even begin to answer that.

Really? No vid off thatsreallynotverytasteful.com?

SMOKEU

8th November 2012, 22:28

Really? No vid off thatsreallynotverytasteful.com?

Not for the time being.

ellipsis

8th November 2012, 23:28

...before any soul caves in to the lure of the illicit, they have no doubt been subjected to the infantile horrors of milk...some even in powdered form...could there be any correlation between these two morphic states...hmmmmm...

ducatilover

9th November 2012, 00:50

(I am all for it being legalised, taxed, and available for sale in the equivalent of liquor stores) .

Is that realistic though (having it on shelves) with the current anti-towbaccy stuff going on, legalising another drug that's smoked would be plain silly of them (in a political sense), would it not?

I'm not sure at the moment if I could care less, I've seen people ruin their lives over many drugs, incl. weed, alcohol and tobacco, I don't expect this number of people will change dramatically if legalisation occurs (idiots will always be idiots)

It could potentially be a big blow to the illegal growing trade (twats with patches, lower brain powered thugs with a desire to stand over weaker people by using pack hunting) which is a good thing. Then there is the worry of it causing the twats to start making more hard drugs. Put the thinking hats on, and I doubt there would be an increase in that either, shirley, because the market won't suddenly explode and they'll be left out of pocket.

But, I dunno.

unstuck

9th November 2012, 05:45

scumdog

9th November 2012, 05:55

Funny how some people can stop at the pub and have a couple of drinks and then ride or drive on, but if you refuse a drink and just opt for a couple of tokes on a cone or joint, then often you are seen as a social leper or some sort of deviant, drug dealing,lowlife. People are fucked, thats all there is to it, but I like that everyone is a fucken headcase, it makes life so interesting and exciting.:Punk::Punk:

I can stop at the pub and have a drink or maybe two - not to get any effect from the alcohol (Hell, I even drink Amstel light at times) but just to have a cold drink I like the taste of and in company

Can you have a toke without expecting a buzz?...IS there "Light Tokes' (tm)??
Just saying man...

Tigadee

9th November 2012, 06:33

One of the things I read about it was that the deglamourisation of the process (likened to queuing up to renew your driver's licence, EVERY MORNING) had had a marked effect on the numbers of addicts.

I like THAT! :laugh:

jrandom

9th November 2012, 06:34

I can stop at the pub and have a drink or maybe two - not to get any effect...

<img src="http://i50.tinypic.com/1il5qs.jpg"/>

Don't be a fool, man.

If you like riding your motorbike after two standard drinks, go hard. It's legal and the risk is small. But drop the hypocrisy eh?

007XX

9th November 2012, 07:02

I can stop at the pub and have a drink or maybe two - not to get any effect from the alcohol (Hell, I even drink Amstel light at times) but just to have a cold drink I like the taste of and in company

With all due respect... Are you serious? ANY alcohol has an effect, as you should well know. Whether your body has built an ability to make you feel less affected to it via habit is one thing but it doesn't mean there is no effect, sorry.

[/QUOTE]
Can you have a toke without expecting a buzz?...IS there "Light Tokes' (tm)??
Just saying man...[/QUOTE]

You wouldn't find a weed that doesn't affect you at all, unless its so old that all the THC has been dehydrated out of it I think. Don't quote me on this one, I'm no expert.

But there are various degrees of potency for sure, so a "light toke" as you put it is not out of the question.

Visit Amsterdam someday, they'll fill you in gladly ;)

huff3r

9th November 2012, 07:20

With all due respect... Are you serious? ANY alcohol has an effect, as you should well know. Whether your body has built an ability to make you feel less affected to it via habit is one thing but it doesn't mean there is no effect, sorry.

Can you have a toke without expecting a buzz?...IS there "Light Tokes' (tm)??
Just saying man...

You wouldn't find a weed that doesn't affect you at all, unless its so old that all the THC has been dehydrated out of it I think. Don't quote me on this one, I'm no expert.

But there are various degrees of potency for sure, so a "light toke" as you put it is not out of the question.

Visit Amsterdam someday, they'll fill you in gladly ;)

I think his point wasn't that he wouldn't be affected by the alcohol, but that the effect was not his reason for drinking it. He drinks beer because he likes the taste.

I haven't tried smoking pot myself, but I'm pretty sure nobody smokes it for the taste or the smell or whatever. They smoke it for the buzz.

Alcohol is primarily a drink with the side affect of affecting the mind. Weed is primarily used for affecting the mind.

Also Alcohol is a heap easier to control when it comes to people driving. Very easy to breath or blood test using readily available equipment..

(I'm not saying people don't mis-use booze as a buzz as well, just that it has another purpose).

mashman

9th November 2012, 07:23

Is that realistic though (having it on shelves) with the current anti-towbaccy stuff going on, legalising another drug that's smoked would be plain silly of them (in a political sense), would it not?

:yes: You could buy the legal highs from the dairy.

Can you have a toke without expecting a buzz?...IS there "Light Tokes' (tm)??
Just saying man...

As the lady says, yes, you just need to smoke a couple of puffs (that does not peel a couple of Honda riders from the lights), but you will get a slight "buzz"

BoristheBiter

9th November 2012, 07:36

Dude I am all for legalisation of it, and if it was legal it would not increase my consumption one iota: from zero to zero.

But from every reasonable and reasoned perspective prohibition simply does not work. So, take all the money spent on trying to enforce the unenforceable, and spend it on education, so people make better life choices, or whatever.

My view is that if you can afford to buy it, and if you dont fuck up anything other than yourself, then you should be free to stick anything in your body you want to. Just don't steal to fund a habit, etc.

The Swedish approach. Oh, you're a drug addict. Come to this clinic every morning, here is your free state supplied drugs, fill in this form,join this queue, here you go, next please. One of the things I read about it was that the deglamourisation of the process (likened to queuing up to renew your driver's licence, EVERY MORNING) had had a marked effect on the numbers of addicts.

Spoken like a true lawyer, from somewhere between the real world and fantasy land.

Banditbandit

9th November 2012, 07:46

Most pot smokers started out with alcohol and tobacco.

And all hard drug users started on MILK

jrandom

9th November 2012, 07:51

He drinks beer because he likes the taste.

Man, I just don't believe that shit. Ginger beer tastes pretty good, but you never see these "I just drink it for the taste" guys drinking ginger beer, do you? It's always something with alcohol in it. The ones who drink ginger beer or lemonade when they stop at the pub simply say "I don't drink alcohol when I ride".

I haven't tried smoking pot myself, but I'm pretty sure nobody smokes it for the taste or the smell or whatever.

Actually, not true. Cannabis bud can be a lovely thing to smoke. Very fragrant and tasty. Complex aromas. Just as interesting on the palate as wine or tobacco. Yes, it gives you a buzz, but I enjoy it in the same way I enjoy Erinmore Flake in my tobacco pipe.

But, like wine or tobacco, it can also be crappy. If all I could smoke was rank-arse shitty bud that tasted like dirt and twigs, I'd be likely to just not get stoned at all. In the same way as I'll smoke a cigar or the right pipe tobacco and enjoy the nicotine buzz, but I'm not usually interested in smoking tailor-made durries. And neither will I drink wine out of a cardboard box, no matter how much I feel like I could use some ethanol in my system.

Alcohol is primarily a drink with the side affect of affecting the mind. Weed is primarily used for affecting the mind.

What utter bollocks.

With a clean water supply and refrigeration technology, there's no reason whatsoever to drink alcohol for any purpose other than its psychoactive effects. We haven't needed to ferment beverages to stop them from spoiling for over a century now.

ducatilover

9th November 2012, 07:59

:yes: You could buy the legal highs from the dairy.

The cuurent crusade about quashing legal highs is another thing that'll make getting weed legal harder, arguably some of those highs have less of an effect on the user and oh me, oh my, they're sinful bad drugs and Satan will hump you.
If weed was legalised, you'd expect many of thoe legal highs will become legal again, otherwise the hypocrisy would be overwhelming.

And Towbacky is not as much of a high inducing thing and it's almost criminal to have a fag in the mouth in public now.

I just don't see it.

007XX

9th November 2012, 08:07

The cuurent crusade about quashing legal highs is another thing that'll make getting weed legal harder, arguably some of those highs have less of an effect on the user and oh me, oh my, they're sinful bad drugs and Satan will hump you.
If weed was legalised, you'd expect many of thoe legal highs will become legal again, otherwise the hypocrisy would be overwhelming.

And Towbacky is not as much of a high inducing thing and it's almost criminal to have a fag in the mouth in public now.

I just don't see it.

Could it possibly be because of the fact that tobacco is undeniably way more addictive, and actively ruining the health of people who use it, regardless of whether they abuse it or not?

Don't get me wrong, I used to be a smoker. I do not have an addictive nature but tobacco had me for a number of years.

mashman

9th November 2012, 08:07

The cuurent crusade about quashing legal highs is another thing that'll make getting weed legal harder, arguably some of those highs have less of an effect on the user and oh me, oh my, they're sinful bad drugs and Satan will hump you.
If weed was legalised, you'd expect many of thoe legal highs will become legal again, otherwise the hypocrisy would be overwhelming.

And Towbacky is not as much of a high inducing thing and it's almost criminal to have a fag in the mouth in public now.

I just don't see it.

I reckon the legal highs will disappear. I didn't particularly enjoy the legal highs. Good enough, but no substitute by any means... and I will educate my kids thusly when they come of age.

Edit: Last year legal highs killed 43 people in the UK, up from 5 the year before. In the history of mankind (and women too I guess), how many have been killed through smoking Cannabis?

jrandom

9th November 2012, 08:12

I reckon the legal highs will disappear.

Yeah, they're nasty. I don't touch them no more. People only smoke them because either:

(a) they can't get the real thing cos they don't have the hookups, or

(b) they get drug-tested at work.

Legalisation fixes (a), and (b) isn't an issue if you smoke carefully and in moderation. THC only stays in your system for a long time if you build it up in your system for a long time. I work with someone who smoked up on Friday night and pissed clear on Monday morning. The key is to be clear, stay clear, have one smoke when you're not going to be going to work for the next day or two, and leave it at that.

jrandom

9th November 2012, 08:13

Edit: Last year legal highs killed 43 people in the UK, up from 5 the year before.

That won't be cannabinoid-type legal highs, it'll be completely unrelated stimulants, I'd expect.

Banditbandit

9th November 2012, 08:14

how many have been killed through smoking Cannabis?

There is research indicating it is carcinogenic .. smoking cannabis can potentially give you throat and lung cancer ... it sis just as dangerous as tobacco

But then I think that smoking ANYTHING can potentially do that ..

jrandom

9th November 2012, 08:15

There is research indicating it is carcinogenic .. smoking cannabis can potentially give you throat and lung cancer ...

Smoking anything will do that.

That's why cooking with cannabis instead of smoking it is a Good Thing (tm).

BoristheBiter

9th November 2012, 08:21

jrandom

9th November 2012, 08:24

most dope smokers smoke tobacco as well

Where the hell did you get that idea?

Doesn't match my experience.

BoristheBiter

9th November 2012, 08:26

Where the hell did you get that idea?

Doesn't match my experience.

Maybe you're just not that normal.

oneofsix

9th November 2012, 08:26

There is research indicating it is carcinogenic .. smoking cannabis can potentially give you throat and lung cancer ... it sis just as dangerous as tobacco

But then I think that smoking ANYTHING can potentially do that ..

I thought the research said it was at least twice as dangerous as tobacco but also added the rider that that could be due to the weed smoker smoking more deeply, longer draws, and holding it in longer rather than the typical tobacco smoker's puffing on the fag.

BBQ steaks have also been said to be carcinogenic if charred.

jrandom

9th November 2012, 08:27

Maybe you're just not that normal.

And maybe your circle of acquaintances doesn't constitute a statistically significant sample.

scissorhands

9th November 2012, 08:29

Yeah, they're nasty. I don't touch them no more. People only smoke them because either:

(a) they can't get the real thing cos they don't have the hookups, or

(b) they get drug-tested at work.

Legalisation fixes (a), and (b) isn't an issue if you smoke carefully and in moderation. THC only stays in your system for a long time if you build it up in your system for a long time. I work with someone who smoked up on Friday night and pissed clear on Monday morning. The key is to be clear, stay clear, have one smoke when you're not going to be going to work for the next day or two, and leave it at that.

Tons of media these last two weeks re legal highs, and the new blends being way more harmful for users, than the earlier safer ones which have now been banned, even though they are harmful too.

Two Southland school principals made formal complaints to the minister, last week. Australia has many recent media releases too.

Synthetic cannabis appears to be 10 as harmful as the real thing, mainly anxiety related disorders
I had a wee binge on K2 black and Puff Superstrength
Never again
Very harmful compared to cannabis
Avoid!

BoristheBiter

9th November 2012, 08:31

And maybe your circle of acquaintances doesn't constitute a statistically significant sample.

Who knows?
probably I see the same side as scummy.
The fact that most people I associate with are all about keeping themselves fit and wouldn't think about putting some smokey shit through their body's might be another reason we see it differently.

HenryDorsetCase

9th November 2012, 08:32

Spoken like a true lawyer, from somewhere between the real world and fantasy land.

twat.

you got better ideas? Or indeed any ideas?

did you miss the cut in LAWS101 to get into second year or something because youve got a chip on your shoulder the size of a medicine ball.

oneofsix

9th November 2012, 08:34

Tons of media these last two weeks re legal highs, and the new blends being way more harmful for users, than the earlier safer ones which have now been banned, even though they are harmful too.

Two Southland school principals made formal complaints to the minister, last week. Australia has many recent media releases too.

Synthetic cannabis appears to be 10 as harmful as the real thing, mainly anxiety related disorders
I had a wee binge on K2 black and Puff Superstrength
Never again
Very harmful compared to cannabis
Avoid!

Gee a chemical mix being more dangerous than a natural substance it is trying to copy :eek5: who would have thought :gob: :lol:

BoristheBiter

9th November 2012, 08:37

twat.

you got better ideas? Or indeed any ideas?

did you miss the cut in LAWS101 to get into second year or something because youve got a chip on your shoulder the size of a medicine ball.

Nothing personal I think all lawyers are twats.

But to answer you first post.
So banning something doesn't work so lets just let drunk drivers off, speeders, wife and child beaters, see where i'm going with this.

Lets cut off a hand of pot smokers, they will never do it a third time.:whistle:

jrandom

9th November 2012, 08:37

most people I associate with are all about keeping themselves fit

Two of the keenest stoners I know are also two of the fittest people I know. One has a sub-10h Ironman PB, the other has a sub-30min 10km run PB.

I myself aren't any sort of natural athlete, but I can still get up on any given morning and knock out a two-hour half marathon.

I think you need to re-evaluate some of your conclusions.

BoristheBiter

9th November 2012, 08:40

Two of the keenest stoners I know are also two of the fittest people I know. One has a sub-10h Ironman PB, the other has a sub-30min 10km run PB.

I myself aren't any sort of natural athlete, but I can still get up on any given morning and knock out a two-hour half marathon.

I think you need to re-evaluate some of your conclusions.

Like yours they are based on the people and things i see around me.
we just have different area's of society from which we base our observations.

jrandom

9th November 2012, 08:42

Like yours they are based on the people and things i see around me.
we just have different area's of society from which we base our observations.

Aye, I know.

I'm just making the point that it pays not to stereotype people, even based on one's own experiences.

Banditbandit

9th November 2012, 08:44

I thought the research said it was at least twice as dangerous as tobacco but also added the rider that that could be due to the weed smoker smoking more deeply, longer draws, and holding it in longer rather than the typical tobacco smoker's puffing on the fag.

BBQ steaks have also been said to be carcinogenic if charred.

Yeah yeah whateveer .. pass that doobie ..

Gee a chemical mix being more dangerous than a natural substance it is trying to copy :eek5: who would have thought :gob: :lol:

Well cyanide and Atropa Belladonna are both natural substances ... I would not fuck around with either - the chemical mixes are probably safer ..

007XX

9th November 2012, 08:46

Who knows?
probably I see the same side as scummy.
The fact that most people I associate with are all about keeping themselves fit and wouldn't think about putting some smokey shit through their body's might be another reason we see it differently.

I'm sorry, but I disagree based on the thinking that being prejudiced against marijuana doesn't make you any more correct just because you have a perceived high moral viewpoint.

This argument will always come to a standstill between those who do, and those who don't.

Excess is bad in anything. Recreational should be just that, but some people cannot seem to comprehend this.

Binge anything, and you will pay the consequences for it, be it alcohol, food, apathism, etc

HenryDorsetCase

9th November 2012, 08:46

Nothing personal I think all lawyers are twats.

But to answer you first post.
So banning something doesn't work so lets just let drunk drivers off, speeders, wife and child beaters, see where i'm going with this.

Lets cut off a hand of pot smokers, they will never do it a third time.:whistle:

Not a deep thinker are you?

Your proposition does not support your conclusion. If you re-read my post, my stated position is (to rephrase it): You can do what you want to yourself. Spike up some smack, smoke a shit ton of crystal meth, make a hash brownie the size of Ethiopia and eat it all, I dont care. But when your choices start to negatively affect others, that is where societal sanction is warranted. So you, to feed your drug habit, put your girlfriend out on the stroll. Thats bad. You steal: No. You lie or defraud or demand money with menaces: no. You drive drunk. No. You beat your wife and kids? no. You see where I am going with this? The problem is not drugs per se, it is people. and there are (I venture to suggest, without having researched it) way more people who have and cause problems with the "legal" drugs than they do with the illegal ones. I just think the hypocrisy is too much to bear. I also think that a government missing a revenue stream such as this is a disservice to the rest of the taxpayers. If all the pot heads are taxed, then the excise tax on alcohol could conceivably be reduced and I could buy wine at $15 a bottle instead of $20. Woo.

HenryDorsetCase

9th November 2012, 08:48

Binge anything, and you will pay the consequences for it, be it alcohol, food, apathism, etc

I dunno, man, I used to be apathetic but now I just don't care.

BoristheBiter

9th November 2012, 08:56

I'm sorry, but I disagree based on the thinking that being prejudiced against marijuana doesn't make you any more correct just because you have a perceived high moral viewpoint.

This argument will always come to a standstill between those who do, and those who don't.

Excess is bad in anything. Recreational should be just that, but some people cannot seem to comprehend this.

Binge anything, and you will pay the consequences for it, be it alcohol, food, apathism, etc

I am not on any moral high ground, just a reformed smoker. (even worse).
After smoking for over 25years I know for a fact what it has done to my system.

Not a deep thinker are you?

Your proposition does not support your conclusion. If you re-read my post, my stated position is (to rephrase it): You can do what you want to yourself. Spike up some smack, smoke a shit ton of crystal meth, make a hash brownie the size of Ethiopia and eat it all, I dont care. But when your choices start to negatively affect others, that is where societal sanction is warranted. So you, to feed your drug habit, put your girlfriend out on the stroll. Thats bad. You steal: No. You lie or defraud or demand money with menaces: no. You drive drunk. No. You beat your wife and kids? no. You see where I am going with this? The problem is not drugs per se, it is people. and there are (I venture to suggest, without having researched it) way more people who have and cause problems with the "legal" drugs than they do with the illegal ones. I just think the hypocrisy is too much to bear. I also think that a government missing a revenue stream such as this is a disservice to the rest of the taxpayers. If all the pot heads are taxed, then the excise tax on alcohol could conceivably be reduced and I could buy wine at $15 a bottle instead of $20. Woo.

Sorry I thought the :whistle: would have been a give away.

007XX

9th November 2012, 08:58

I dunno, man, I used to be apathetic but now I just don't care.

http://politicalbug.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/0014_ignorance_apathy.png

007XX

9th November 2012, 09:03

I am not on any moral high ground, just a reformed smoker. (even worse).
After smoking for over 25years I know for a fact what it has done to my system.
y.

So am I, a reformed smoker that is. But I won't turn this into a pissing contest as to whom smoked the longest and how much it affected us.

Yes, smoking is bad, no arguments. Secluding weed as the most evil though, just because it is an illegal drug? I disagree. They are both harmful if abused, just like alcohol and anything else that if misused can be harmful.

oneofsix

9th November 2012, 09:04

Not a deep thinker are you?

Your proposition does not support your conclusion. If you re-read my post, my stated position is (to rephrase it): You can do what you want to yourself. Spike up some smack, smoke a shit ton of crystal meth, make a hash brownie the size of Ethiopia and eat it all, I dont care. But when your choices start to negatively affect others, that is where societal sanction is warranted. So you, to feed your drug habit, put your girlfriend out on the stroll. Thats bad. You steal: No. You lie or defraud or demand money with menaces: no. You drive drunk. No. You beat your wife and kids? no. You see where I am going with this? The problem is not drugs per se, it is people. and there are (I venture to suggest, without having researched it) way more people who have and cause problems with the "legal" drugs than they do with the illegal ones. I just think the hypocrisy is too much to bear. I also think that a government missing a revenue stream such as this is a disservice to the rest of the taxpayers. If all the pot heads are taxed, then the excise tax on alcohol could conceivably be reduced and I could buy wine at $15 a bottle instead of $20. Woo.

:yes: :yes: Don't make a substance illegal make doing bad shit to others illegal regardless of substance or no substance involvement.

BoristheBiter

9th November 2012, 09:30

So am I, a reformed smoker that is. But I won't turn this into a pissing contest as to whom smoked the longest and how much it affected us.

Yes, smoking is bad, no arguments. Secluding weed as the most evil though, just because it is an illegal drug? I disagree. They are both harmful if abused, just like alcohol and anything else that if misused can be harmful.

I never said one was worse than the other.

SMOKEU

9th November 2012, 09:51

We should have some KB session meet ups. No cops allowed.

jrandom

9th November 2012, 10:04

We should have some KB session meet ups. No cops allowed.

What an absolutely brilliant idea. I'm sure nobody's thought of that before. Do you want to start the event thread, or shall I?

SMOKEU

9th November 2012, 10:10

What an absolutely brilliant idea. I'm sure nobody's thought of that before. Do you want to start the event thread, or shall I?

I'll let you do the honours.

mashman

9th November 2012, 10:38

Yeah, they're nasty. I don't touch them no more. People only smoke them because either:

(a) they can't get the real thing cos they don't have the hookups, or

(b) they get drug-tested at work.

Legalisation fixes (a), and (b) isn't an issue if you smoke carefully and in moderation. THC only stays in your system for a long time if you build it up in your system for a long time. I work with someone who smoked up on Friday night and pissed clear on Monday morning. The key is to be clear, stay clear, have one smoke when you're not going to be going to work for the next day or two, and leave it at that.

True. What someone will load up in a single will allow me to make 3 singles. A light dusting for me seems to work wonders. In the 2 years I smoked very regularly, I didn't build up a tolerance as I didn't need to use more and more or smoke more and more frequently to achieve the same benefit... plus a single these days turns me into a complete mong within seconds.

That won't be cannabinoid-type legal highs, it'll be completely unrelated stimulants, I'd expect.

Possibly, possibly not. No doubt there's all sorts of shit in there that's not good for you :rofl:. There were a story or two in NZ last yearish where a nasty substance had been found in certain smokeme legal high products. I figure I'll die someday, but didn't fancy it at the hands of some government backed unscrupulous supplier.

Banditbandit

9th November 2012, 10:39

More models - this one smoking

[r rated]http://www.deviantart.com/download/67376642/Nikki_Nude_Smoking_I_by_nikkimagnusson.png[/r rated]

HenryDorsetCase

9th November 2012, 10:51

fake tits: fail

Banditbandit

9th November 2012, 10:53

fake tits: fail

What are ya?? Some sort of boob gourmand? I wouldn't kick her out of bed ..

mashman

9th November 2012, 11:05

I wouldn't kick her out of bed ..

Me neither... but I'd probably have to point her face away from me.

jrandom

9th November 2012, 11:07

fake tits: fail

Amen.

What are ya?? Some sort of boob gourmand?

Yep.

I wouldn't kick her out of bed...

I wouldn't get into bed with her in the first place. Most likely because she wouldn't be interested in doing so, of course.

But if I was capable of attracting a chick that hot with fake tits, I'd be capable of attracting one that hot with natural tits and would pick the latter every time. Boob implants = vanity, shallowness, and self-obsession = she's bad news, avoid.

Yes, I know implants don't have to be as ludicrous as the ones in that photo. Principle still applies though.

Banditbandit

9th November 2012, 11:45

But if I was capable of attracting a chick that hot with fake tits, I'd be capable of attracting one that hot with natural tits and would pick the latter every time. Boob implants = vanity, shallowness, and self-obsession = she's bad news, avoid.

Yes, I know implants don't have to be as ludicrous as the ones in that photo. Principle still applies though.

Fuck me ... whose talking about having a relationship with her ???? She's a blonde .. they don't last long ... and it's just a meaningless photo dumped in a meaningless trhread ...

What's to get so serious and analytical about ...

SMOKEU

9th November 2012, 11:56

Me neither... but I'd probably have to point her face away from me.

That's what a brown paper bag is for. Chicks love that sort of thing.

Banditbandit

9th November 2012, 12:01

That's what a brown paper bag is for. Chicks love that sort of thing.

There yah go ... Why the fuck not a WHITE paper bag ... WHITE paper bag ... why is everything about colour with you !!! Why do you keep linking colour with negative connotations !!!

imdying

9th November 2012, 12:23

There yah go ... Why the fuck not a WHITE paper bag ... WHITE paper bag ... why is everything about colour with you !!! Why do you keep linking colour with negative connotations !!!

Take a crap, look down, there's your answer.

jrandom

9th November 2012, 12:25

Fuck me ... whose talking about having a relationship with her ???? She's a blonde .. they don't last long ...

I prefer to think these things through.

But, yeah, I know what you mean.

Anyway. Fake tits aren't hot.

SMOKEU

9th November 2012, 12:27

Why do you keep linking colour with negative connotations !!!

Because the black guy is always guilty.

Banditbandit

9th November 2012, 12:29

Take a crap, look down, there's your answer.

Well fuck me .. are you saying my shit has negative connotations??? ... how do I get white shit ??? Like you all produce ... the whole world's full of your white shit !!!

Because the black guy is always guilty.

See .. there's that White shit again !!!

imdying

9th November 2012, 12:34

Because the black guy is always guilty.

No way man. Police 10-7 is a misrepresentation of the criminal element in NZ... they purposely fill it with cheeky darkies, but they're not the ones doing all the crime!

HenryDorsetCase

9th November 2012, 12:41

No way man. Police 10-7 is a misrepresentation of the criminal element in NZ...

I think this part is true. If you really want to make out like a bandit, start a finance company.

Even if you steal $50MILLION DOLLARS you will get home d.

imdying

9th November 2012, 12:53

Heh, but who wants to see old men with veiny noses getting rolled by the SFO :D

007XX

9th November 2012, 13:13

Allow me... not blonde and real.

SMOKEU

9th November 2012, 13:18

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/BreastsBarcroft_450x468.jpg

Banditbandit

9th November 2012, 13:42

Big Blonde

Nasty .. Blonde and fake ... and just downright nasty

007XX

9th November 2012, 13:50

Nasty .. Blonde and fake ... and just downright nasty

While we're at it, I'd put the state of "real blonde" to the question as well.

Not that I'd be keen on finding out mind you.

SMOKEU

9th November 2012, 13:52

Nasty .. Blonde and fake ... and just downright nasty

She wouldn't need a lifejacket at sea though, those tits should keep her afloat for a while.

Banditbandit

9th November 2012, 13:57

While we're at it, I'd put the state of "real blonde" to the question as well.

Not that I'd be keen on finding out mind you.

Blonde is a state of mind, not just a hair colour ..

She wouldn't need a lifejacket at sea though, those tits should keep her afloat for a while.

Silicon is heavier than water ...

jrandom

9th November 2012, 14:01

If I were a porn actress, I'd totally use 'Shannon Entropy' as a stage name.

I'm, y'know. Just sayin'.

:doobey:

007XX

9th November 2012, 14:34

Blonde is a state of mind, not just a hair colour ..

http://orly-yarly-nowai.deviantart.com/art/GREAT-SCOTT-59153314

HenryDorsetCase

9th November 2012, 15:08

While we're at it, I'd put the state of "real blonde" to the question as well.

Not that I'd be keen on finding out mind you.

Its not like we can match the carpet to the curtains, huh, what with the floors being, um, polished. and the rear entrance bleached to within an inch of its life.

007XX

9th November 2012, 15:34

Its not like we can match the carpet to the curtains, huh, what with the floors being, um, polished. and the rear entrance bleached to within an inch of its life.

Thank you ever so much for that mental image.... Urgh!

HenryDorsetCase

9th November 2012, 15:53

Thank you ever so much for that mental image.... Urgh!

Don't pretend like you weren't just a bit turned on.

scumdog

9th November 2012, 17:45

Don't be a fool, man.

If you like riding your motorbike after two standard drinks, go hard. It's legal and the risk is small. But drop the hypocrisy eh?

Fuck off troll,:motu:

I wouldn't be over the legal limit.

So what you're saying is equal to say I shouldn't be riding at 30kph as I could crash - even though the limit is 100kph ...

scumdog

9th November 2012, 17:51

scumdog

9th November 2012, 17:54

I think his point wasn't that he wouldn't be affected by the alcohol, but that the effect was not his reason for drinking it. He drinks beer because he likes the taste.

I haven't tried smoking pot myself, but I'm pretty sure nobody smokes it for the taste or the smell or whatever. They smoke it for the buzz.

Alcohol is primarily a drink with the side affect of affecting the mind. Weed is primarily used for affecting the mind.

Also Alcohol is a heap easier to control when it comes to people driving. Very easy to breath or blood test using readily available equipment..

(I'm not saying people don't mis-use booze as a buzz as well, just that it has another purpose).

Farkme, at last SOMEBODY that can see where I am coming from!:yes:

Did the rest of you lot have too many hooters or something?

As a matter of interest to the nay-sayers, I would happily stop off at a pub and have a couple of beers with NO alcohol content if there was such a beast.

And if it tasted any good.

jrandom

9th November 2012, 18:24

I wouldn't be over the legal limit.

No, but you'd be affected, is my point.

So what you're saying is equal to say I shouldn't be riding at 30kph as I could crash - even though the limit is 100kph ...

No, I'm saying, go hard, ride at whatever speed you want - but don't claim that you're somehow morally superior because you're doing it under the influence of alcohol instead of cannabis.

scumdog

9th November 2012, 18:28

No, but you'd be affected, is my point.

No, I'm saying, go hard, ride at whatever speed you want - but don't claim that you're somehow morally superior because you're doing it under the influence of alcohol instead of cannabis.

So if I was stoned it would be ok??;)

scumdog

9th November 2012, 18:30

'Big Boobied Blonde thingy'

As natural as a Gold Wing with ape-hangers...

jrandom

9th November 2012, 18:36

So if I was stoned it would be ok??;)

But of course.

<img src="http://i47.tinypic.com/2vwg45f.gif"/>

scumdog

9th November 2012, 18:39

[CENTER]But of course.

I still recognise that bit of road.

So I can't have been stoned at the time...

007XX

9th November 2012, 18:49

Farkme, at last SOMEBODY that can see where I am coming from!:yes:

Did the rest of you lot have too many hooters or something?

As a matter of interest to the nay-sayers, I would happily stop off at a pub and have a couple of beers with NO alcohol content if there was such a beast.

And if it tasted any good.

So why didn't you just say that in the first place you crazy old fool??

(i'm sorry, I didn't mean it... Ya know I :love: ya!)

With all due respect ANY speed has an effect as you well know.....:crazy:

I don't do speed :shifty:

No, really I don't... I'm driving Miss Daisy on two wheels.

unstuck

10th November 2012, 07:52

I dont like to smoke to get really stoned like some of the dudes I know, but I love the taste and smell of some really good weed. I prefer the effect the weed has on me to alcohol any day, and I am sure my friends and family would agree, I,m a big enough fuckwit without getting liqoured up.:Punk::Punk:

Flip

10th November 2012, 10:06

Well just my 10c worth.

Of both my friends who have killed themselves both started off smoking dope.

I wouldent touch the stuff myself and I am happy with the law the way it is. Call me a spoil sport.

oldrider

10th November 2012, 10:26

Drugs and alcohol don't give me any problems but being dependant on the community at large gives me the real horrors! :eek5:

SMOKEU

10th November 2012, 11:07

Well just my 10c worth.

Of both my friends who have killed themselves both started off smoking dope.

Yes, and I bet they also ate burgers and drank coffee. They probably watched TV, too.

imdying

10th November 2012, 11:33

Usarka

10th November 2012, 12:03

Big Dave

10th November 2012, 12:13

Win or Bin?????

Shirley it's:

What Ever

Usarka

10th November 2012, 12:58

Win or Bin?????

Shirley it's:

What Ever

You can't be serious.

jellywrestler

10th November 2012, 13:02

The fact that most people I associate with are all about keeping themselves fit and wouldn't think about putting some smokey shit through their body's might be another reason we see it differently. then bake it into cookies

jellywrestler

10th November 2012, 13:05

Fake tits aren't hot.clearly you haven't tried warming them like hell in the shower and placing jelly molds on them then...

Katman

10th November 2012, 13:09

Me neither... but I'd probably have to point her face away from me.

Having seen your picture, I imagine she'd prefer it that way.

Katman

10th November 2012, 14:00

then bake it into cookies

Set oven to 200 degrees Captain Sulu.

007XX

10th November 2012, 14:09

Minimum age for legal weed smoking should be 24. Thats the age kids brains stop growing and they're much much less likely to be affected by psychoticness or other bad things caused by the weed.

Mind you a mate of mine asked if 12 was too young for his kid to have coffee. He went all spaz when I said 16.....thought i was a dumbarse dinosaurus. Parents are feeding their kids stimulants at a young age anyway so fuck 'em, might as well let them get stoned too.

I agree with your take on the minimum legal age, however, you can bet you last Snicker it an't going to stop 16 year olds from trying it and frying a few developping brain cells in the process. Kind of been that way for a long time.

But as far as the coffe is concerned, I find that dubious an argument at best. See, my grandparents' generation had a tradition whereas when a child turned 10, they were allowed a small cup of coffee to dip their morning slice of baguette with butter into for breakfast. This was not done just in our family either, but was a tradition across France.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but the French do have one of the lowest incidence of heart related diseases in the world. One would then assume taking such stimulants as coffee at a young age throughout the course of a lifetime would theoriticaly go in direct opposition to this.

Now, I understand that this good cardiovascular health could be attributed to a whole plethora of other factors, such as genetic predispositions, a diet higher in antioxidants (mostly from red wine apparently), and good fats ( Mediterranean diet and olive oil- yeah!). But really, if coffee was that bad, one coffee everyday from the age of 10 would have had an impact.

My grandma just turned 90 and is still going strong. Sharp as a tack, feisty as ever and still loving her morning cup of coffee.

SMOKEU

10th November 2012, 14:25

Caffeine is fatal in high enough doses. Weed isn't fatal in any dose. Now why is coffee legal and pot isn't?

scumdog

10th November 2012, 14:28

Caffeine is fatal in high enough doses. Weed isn't fatal in any dose. Now why is coffee legal and pot isn't?

Gah..:weep::facepalm::thud:

SMOKEU

10th November 2012, 14:38

Gah..:weep::facepalm::thud:

Prove me wrong, and quoting a piece of legislation isn't going to do it.

Usarka

10th November 2012, 14:44

NZ isn't france. We have a binge drinking culture - kids here knock back large cans of V throughout the day. Same argument goes for red wine, small doses is grand and we've all had some as kids and been ok, but it's illegal for kids to drink wine on the way to school (until they're 18 anyways).

Caffeine is a pscyhoactive stimulant. It commonly produces known pyschiatric symptoms (anxiety and insomnia being the most common). Like all good drugs it produces (nasty) withdrawal symptoms. There's even links between caffeine and psychosis.

My rant was more at the hypocrisy of saying "drugs are bad" when we're happy for our kids to knock back large doses of a known pyschoactive drug. Then when they try a different drug we call them criminal waster layabouts get a haircut you dirty no good hippy.

Have a read here and http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/11/6/432.full

007XX

10th November 2012, 14:49

Caffeine is fatal in high enough doses. Weed isn't fatal in any dose. Now why is coffee legal and pot isn't?

Actually, not quite true. Marijuana could become potentialy harmful, but you would have to smoke such a ridiculously high quantity, it is highly improbable it would ever happen.

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm

But in my earlier point about coffee, I stressed that I was refering to a low dosage over a long period of time of consumption (one cup a day), which has been proven to be even a beneficial factor towards the warding of some cancers for example.

My point: excess consumption is the problem, not so much the substance. Both are fairly harmless if the user is responsible and consummes with care.

007XX

10th November 2012, 14:56

My rant was more at the hypocrisy of saying "drugs are bad" when we're happy for our kids to knock back large doses of a known pyschoactive drug. Then when they try a different drug we call them criminal waster layabouts get a haircut you dirty no good hippy.

Have a read here and http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/11/6/432.full

Yes, that I agree with. And of course, I am aware of the effect of caffeine. As someone who can't sleep at night if I have more than 2 cups of coffee in the one day, or drink it after 12 pm, I am particularly alarmed when I see kids or even adults drinking the likes of V and Red Bull, sometimes two or three a day :crazy:

And the size of the cans are increasing as well!

My 15 year old has been educated about them, and is against them himself. But it is scary how people get sucked in by these seemingly "harmless" substances.

scumdog

10th November 2012, 16:07

I am particularly alarmed when I see kids or even adults drinking the likes of V and Red Bull, sometimes two or three a day :crazy:

And the size of the cans are increasing as well!

My 15 year old has been educated about them, and is against them himself. But it is scary how people get sucked in by these seemingly "harmless" substances.

Being devils advocate: So if cannabis was able to be sold as easily a V Red Bull K2 and all the other junk kids thrive on you thinkl that they would not go for it like rabod dog in a room full of rabbits???

(BTW: This is not aimed at you 007XX!)

007XX

10th November 2012, 16:16

Being devils advocate: So if cannabis was able to be sold as easily a V Red Bull K2 and all the other junk kids thrive on you thinkl that they would not go for it like rabod dog in a room full of rabbits???

(BTW: This is not aimed at you 007XX!)

I know mate :hug:

Straight answer? Yes, they would... But there would be hardly any difference between them then and now.

Stoned: they'd lie on the couch, eat Cheetos or whatever and giggle their arses off while playing Halo 4.

Downside: they'd do it for longer.

It is the "perceived" badness of cannabis portrayed by people who have never tried it that annoys me. Especialy when science has succesfully proven that there are no real damage caused by it in the first place.
It is bad because "straight" folks are scared of it, having been labelled a drug by opinionated, straight laced do gooders with only one desire: controlling everything around them to make themselves feel more secure about their lonely little constricted existence.

And that is definitely not directed at you Scummy, i hope you know that.

blue rider

10th November 2012, 17:47

quite simply the netherlands have shown that de-criminalising weed and 'tolerating' its consumption, allowing for retailing of weed and hashish in a controlled environment to adults is possible. Despite rumors, not all habitants of the flat country have turned into no good long haired and unshaven hippies.

a neat little page on the costs of the War on Drugs http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

use of drugs in the netherlands compared to the states http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/netherlands_v_us

human cost of the war on drugs http://www.opendemocracy.net/jimmy-kainja/human-cost-of-war-on-drugs

a wee report on drug use world wide http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/WDR2012/WDR_2012_web_small.pdf

history of weed and why it was declared illegal http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States

alcohol with all the havoc it wreckes is legal and taxed and has a huge lobby
cigarettes with its hundreds of death every year is legal and has a huge lobby ,
but canabis is evil, and its use needs to be prosecuted to the fullest of the law....:brick:

Road kill

10th November 2012, 18:03

Being devils advocate: So if cannabis was able to be sold as easily a V Red Bull K2 and all the other junk kids thrive on you thinkl that they would not go for it like rabod dog in a room full of rabbits???

(BTW: This is not aimed at you 007XX!)

In countries where it is freely available people don't go for it like a rabid dog in a room full of anything at all.

In India "some people" make a semi religion of it,the rest don't really care.
In Holland it's mainly visitors from places where it's illegal that make the head lines,,from what I heard the locals just ain't that interested.
In south Australia where having less than 30g is a "very small" fine if the cop can even be bothered,,,again most people really ain't that interested.
But in NZ the kids are going to go at it like rabid dogs huh,,,,,,,fuck that's a pretty sad mind set.

Here,,,have a Snickers bro'.

scumdog

10th November 2012, 18:13

In countries where it is freely available people don't go for it like a rabid dog in a room full of anything at all.

In India "some people" make a semi religion of it,the rest don't really care.
In Holland it's mainly visitors from places where it's illegal that make the head lines,,from what I heard the locals just ain't that interested.
In south Australia where having less than 30g is a "very small" fine if the cop can even be bothered,,,again most people really ain't that interested.
But in NZ the kids are going to go at it like rabid dogs huh,,,,,,,fuck that's a pretty sad mind set.

Here,,,have a Snickers bro'.

Is it part of the NZ psyche that we 'do' things to excess? - particularly the younger ones?
Like drink too much aclcohol, V & Red Bull.
And smoke K2 and other synthetic cannabis (haha, WTF, who decided to call the crap THAT?)

WOULD they be the same with cannabis if it was legalised?

Who knows...

007XX

10th November 2012, 18:38

Is it part of the NZ psyche that we 'do' things to excess? - particularly the younger ones?
Like drink too much aclcohol, V & Red Bull.
And smoke K2 and other synthetic cannabis (haha, WTF, who decided to call the crap THAT?)

WOULD they be the same with cannabis if it was legalised?

Who knows...

You'd probably find that initialy, there would be a large intake mostly due to curiosity / hype. But then factors such as cost and availability would get in the way, especialy if these two factors are tailored to make it harder. A bit the way cigarette prices have indeed encouraged a lot of people to give up the nasty habit.

Also, it is worth mentioning that smoking weed often is a one time occurence. A lot of people I have spoken to often reported having tried it once, and as they didn't enjoy it, never bothered with it again.

But as you said, who knows? I sure don't have all the answers, but I would say that as times change, and gaps in the market are "met" by chemically made alternatives who do more harm than good, isn't it time that the powers that be adopt a more fluid stance to the wisdom of old?

scissorhands

10th November 2012, 19:41

Scummys kinda right in that Tahiti, Hawaii, NZ all have the reggae, Ben Harper, weed lifestyles going on. That probably wont change a bit.
Which aint a bad thing. If your a Jamaican, your a Jamaican.

Legalisation will change little in the long run, regarding use statistics. The outcome could even be like Holland with an eventual drop in use, if TV ads are aimed at cannabis education.

It seems public awareness of all highs, natural and synthetic is big business now, so cannabis has to compete with all the new kids on the block.

Legalise and tax. I'm also for promoting 2 healthy ales/2 red wines a day... its good for you. Hops and cannabis are relaxing

I'm a bit fat and lazy, drink ales/wines, smoke about 6 'rolls' a week, and 4 coffees a day. Blood pressure was 120/70 at 1pm

Junk food or exhaust gasses are more harmful overall to people

Grubber

10th November 2012, 20:02

Funny how some people can stop at the pub and have a couple of drinks and then ride or drive on, but if you refuse a drink and just opt for a couple of tokes on a cone or joint, then often you are seen as a social leper or some sort of deviant, drug dealing,lowlife. People are fucked, thats all there is to it, but I like that everyone is a fucken headcase, it makes life so interesting and exciting.:Punk::Punk:

One doesn't tend to get drunk on 2 beers, one does end up stoned with one joint. Quite different really.
The only reason someone has a toke is to get HIGH! You can have a beer or 2 and NOT GET HIGH!
Would much rather share the road with someone who has a beer or 2 than someone who was stoned!

blue rider

10th November 2012, 20:52

blue rider

10th November 2012, 20:54

One doesn't tend to get drunk on 2 beers, one does end up stoned with one joint. Quite different really.
The only reason someone has a toke is to get HIGH! You can have a beer or 2 and NOT GET HIGH!
Would much rather share the road with someone who has a beer or 2 than someone who was stoned!

i get drunk after two beers. I would not suggest you share the road with me after these two beers.

one reason I dont drink anything but coffee and lemonade on a ride.

however, you will find more people drunk on the road than stoned.
and sadly drink driving is accepted.

but weed is evil!

scumdog

10th November 2012, 21:26

so we are going to criminalise V/Red Bull and the other caffeine based mood and energy enhancers? We are going to criminalise alcohol consumptions? and we are finally going to classify cigarette as the most deadliest and most addictive drug ever?

!

We can only hope!

scumdog

10th November 2012, 21:28

however, you will find more people drunk on the road than stoned.
and sadly drink driving is accepted.

Not down here it isn't. (It happens but it's not accepted)

It might happen but it's not accepted

So I suggest you move out of the area you're living in.

BoristheBiter

10th November 2012, 21:34

mashman

10th November 2012, 22:00

Berries

10th November 2012, 22:08

I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about. I have weed in at least six different states and never got in to any trouble.

blue rider

10th November 2012, 22:58

Maybe not but you get asked if you want to buy other drugs on every street corner.
If legalising it means it will end up like Amsterdam then I vote to keep banning it that city is a drug cesspit.

sorry, but this is another one of those rumors that aint true. Happend so that I lived and worked in the Netherlands for a couple of years for an international sports company, what can I say, I did it.

i lived in Hilversum, which is about 35 ks of Amsterdam and bout 15 kms of Utrecht, good country to ride a bicycle.
I was never offerend anything on the road, especially considering that the dutchies are quite conservative.
smoking weed is not something a dutch person would do in puplic, it is not advertised, it is a private pleasure.

the only ones making an arse out of themselves are the usual suspects, either american, poms and sadly kiwis. drunk by seven and then some.

but maybe you have been hanging out in corners where you would get offered some sex, drugs and rock and roll.

the city of Amsterdam is a drug cesspit, because of the tourists coming to get stoned, and laid, and drunk. nothing to do with Amsterdam or the Dutch population.

you go to certain parts of NZ, and you get to buy all sorts of stuff, legal or not.

fact is prohibition does not work, it never did.

the question is do we want to take it out of the dark corners and the gangs, into an enforced and controlled environment or not.

scumdog

11th November 2012, 06:54

They're just businessmen trying to earn some money. Should they go door to door instead?

Selling their products of high quality and purity for a modest profit no doubt...:rolleyes:

mashman

11th November 2012, 07:58

Selling their products of high quality and purity for a modest profit no doubt...:rolleyes:

Are you saying that they're selling a product of "required" quality to maximise profit? In which case, they're just following the flock :msn-wink:

scumdog

11th November 2012, 08:07

Are you saying that they're selling a product of "required" quality to maximise profit? In which case, they're just following the flock :msn-wink:

Ah, quality control dictated by their discerning clients?? pffft..."I don't think so Tim'<_<

'The flock' has has Govt dictating the required quality for THEIR product to a major degree.

jrandom

11th November 2012, 08:13

Would much rather share the road with someone who has a beer or 2 than someone who was stoned!

At home, we have a driving seat with force feedback steering wheel and pedals etc set up in the lounge in front of a 50" plasma screen. My flatmate takes Gran Turismo 5 quite seriously.

An interesting experiment to try is to set the best lap time you can, without crashing, on, say, the Nurburgring.

Then have a couple of drinks. Not a lot, just a 'couple'. Which in NZ terms is usually about 4.0 standard drinks, given the way people knock back that horrible premixed bourbon and cola shit.

Then try and match your previous lap.

You'll crash.

Take a hit from the bong instead, though, and you'll have a reasonable chance of actually going faster.

Not statistically significant or particularly scientific, but that's how it goes, every time.

So, yes, I guess I would rather share the road with someone who was stoned. Obviously sober is best, but, y'know, if I had to pick the lesser of the two evils. Generally, stoned = very cautious and self-conscious. Drunk just = 'WHEEEEEEEEE!'

By the way, you do realise that 'getting stoned' isn't an on-off switch, right? No more than 'getting drunk' is. You can smoke or eat more or less cannabis depending on how much you want it to affect you. A quick puff can indeed be the psychoactive equivalent of one beer. Or you can eat a strong piece of cake made with cannabis and be flat on your back all day.

mashman

11th November 2012, 08:27

Ah, quality control dictated by their discerning clients?? pffft..."I don't think so Tim'<_<

'The flock' has has Govt dictating the required quality for THEIR product to a major degree.

Like any business. There are those with a quality product at a higher price and those with a lesser quality product for a lower price. To highlight: The Quad Core processor from AMD, more expensive than the triple core processor. However both have 4 cores. The triple failed quality control and had a core disabled and can be yours for a lot less than the quad core. Same product, but priced differently due to product quality. As you well know sunny ma bouy, the client has fuck all to do with anything, that's what marketing and advertising are for.

:rofl: yes they do, and where do the recommendations in regards to quality come from? Trusted and impartial public professionals, or trusted and impartial private professionals?

Road kill

11th November 2012, 09:00

sorry, but this is another one of those rumors that aint true. Happend so that I lived and worked in the Netherlands for a couple of years for an international sports company, what can I say, I did it.

i lived in Hilversum, which is about 35 ks of Amsterdam and bout 15 kms of Utrecht, good country to ride a bicycle.
I was never offerend anything on the road, especially considering that the dutchies are quite conservative.
smoking weed is not something a dutch person would do in puplic, it is not advertised, it is a private pleasure.

the only ones making an arse out of themselves are the usual suspects, either american, poms and sadly kiwis. drunk by seven and then some.

but maybe you have been hanging out in corners where you would get offered some sex, drugs and rock and roll.

the city of Amsterdam is a drug cesspit, because of the tourists coming to get stoned, and laid, and drunk. nothing to do with Amsterdam or the Dutch population.

you go to certain parts of NZ, and you get to buy all sorts of stuff, legal or not.

fact is prohibition does not work, it never did.

the question is do we want to take it out of the dark corners and the gangs, into an enforced and controlled environment or not.

The answer is NO.

Our Gov't is not about freedom,it's about control,,,,and everything that goes with it.

Our police use weed as an excuse and a fund raiser,,,,and everything that goes with it.

Keeping weed illegal helps maintain the class system,,,and everything that goes with it.

Keeping weed illegal is a cash cow to a whole raft of societies legal parasites,,,the police,social workers,the legal system in general.

There's simply to many people making a tidy living from keeping things just as they are thanks all the same.

So the answer remains NO.

scumdog

11th November 2012, 09:29

oneofsix

11th November 2012, 10:13

The answer is NO.

Our Gov't is not about freedom,it's about control,,,,and everything that goes with it.

Our police use weed as an excuse and a fund raiser,,,,and everything that goes with it.

Keeping weed illegal helps maintain the class system,,,and everything that goes with it.

Keeping weed illegal is a cash cow to a whole raft of societies legal parasites,,,the police,social workers,the legal system in general.

There's simply to many people making a tidy living from keeping things just as they are thanks all the same.

So the answer remains NO.

The only sentence that makes sense is the 2nd, yes government is about control.
The rest is so far off the mark it is sad. Keeping weed illegal is about making the tax paying public pay for keeping weed from competing with other products that big business makes it money from.

Shaun

11th November 2012, 13:10

Think of the fact that the gangs that now make money from dealing have this large chunk of revenue taken away (I am all for it being legalised, taxed, and available for sale in the equivalent of liquor stores) then its a less attractive lifestyle choice, so, fewer and smaller gangs dealing hard drugs, so the po po can (as long as they get the fucking paperwork right and dont forge any search warrants) target those criminals more effectively. bada boom bada bing, everybody wins.

Consider this then, legalise pot and what do the real scum drug dealers do to get there cash in there pocket

More Burglary
More Granny and grandpa bashings

etc etc etc, scum are scum and will take what they can

Anyone that wants to smoke pot in nz can, as it is every where, if you are dumb enough to bring attention upon yourself, bad lucky

scissorhands

11th November 2012, 14:01

Thing I have learnt on the te interwebz forums...

1. People have different points of view

2. Some people do not want to ever question their point of view

2a. The people in point 2 seem to have a lot of time on their hands

2b. The people in point 2 seem reluctant to accept point 1

3. Logic is powerless in the face of obduracy

I'm thinking apathy is still a good proposition, in light of recent comments and beliefs.
Bad science has always shocked me, lets blame some addictions on that too

HenryDorsetCase

11th November 2012, 14:08

but maybe you have been hanging out in corners where you would get offered some sex, drugs and rock and roll.

"Hey, man, I've got this Marshall amp that will blow your mind!!"

its not the same.

One of the most interesting things about the Beatles is that in the late '50's the then five piece Beatles (John, Paul, George, Pete Best the original drummer, and Stu Sutcliffe the original bass player) did a two year stint in Hamsterdam, and had a residency at a dive club on the Reeperbahn. You name it, they did it. From memory they did another stint there before returning to Liverpool. So by 62 when they made it huge, they had been a band for a long time....

blue rider

11th November 2012, 16:51

"Hey, man, I've got this Marshall amp that will blow your mind!!"

its not the same.

One of the most interesting things about the Beatles is that in the late '50's the then five piece Beatles (John, Paul, George, Pete Best the original drummer, and Stu Sutcliffe the original bass player) did a two year stint in Hamsterdam, and had a residency at a dive club on the Reeperbahn. You name it, they did it. From memory they did another stint there before returning to Liverpool. So by 62 when they made it huge, they had been a band for a long time....

this tourist on her 3 day stay in sidney stayed in a hostel on Kings Road......one morning early while on the way to score some latte one of the working girls smiled at me (her nick name was the stewardess due to her dress) and offerd just that sex, drugs and rock n roll. I very politly declined.

however this never happend in St. George (where the Reeperbahn is located, yes I did live in Hamburg, working for an Oil company) nor in Amsterdam, or in New York.

Grubber

11th November 2012, 19:10

i get drunk after two beers. I would not suggest you share the road with me after these two beers.

one reason I dont drink anything but coffee and lemonade on a ride.

however, you will find more people drunk on the road than stoned.
and sadly drink driving is accepted.

but weed is evil!

Different for everyone i guess. I am definitely not drunk on 2 beers but i would definitely be high on 1 toke.
More people drunk because more people drink, numbers game really.
Don't really want to share the road with either to be honest.

blue rider

11th November 2012, 19:31

Different for everyone i guess. I am definitely not drunk on 2 beers but i would definitely be high on 1 toke.
More people drunk because more people drink, numbers game really.
Don't really want to share the road with either to be honest.

but one is legal and one is not.

BoristheBiter

12th November 2012, 07:43

sorry, but this is another one of those rumors that aint true. Happend so that I lived and worked in the Netherlands for a couple of years for an international sports company, what can I say, I did it.

.

Yes it did happen it is true. maybe since you lived there it was just normal behavior?

As a tourist i was shocked at how bad it was never felt safe the whole week we where there.
I would have to say you are partially right about Amsterdam as the rest of the Netherlands is fantastic but the main reason they flock there is the drugs.
Remove the drugs remove the scum that is associated with them.

Grubber

12th November 2012, 07:57

but one is legal and one is not.

Easy fix. Just make it illegal to drive after any drink at all!! Done!
Drink is possibly legal due to one being able to have a couple of beers or a wine and not be affected as such, have 1 toke and you effected straight away.

SMOKEU

12th November 2012, 10:04

oneofsix

12th November 2012, 10:34

BoristheBiter

12th November 2012, 12:00

Yes, because NZ is so safe that no one ever gets bashed while walking down the street by a bunch of drunk muppets.

easy fix, just ban alcohol as well.

jrandom

12th November 2012, 12:02

easy fix, just ban alcohol as well.

Brilliant idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States)!

BoristheBiter

12th November 2012, 12:02

Alternatively legalize the drugs elsewhere as well and they wont congregate in Amsterdam but then half their tourist business disappears as well. :pinch:

it is the soft cock approach to those that are breaking the law that is the problem.
Amsterdam has the reputation for a reason, like I said the rest of the country is fine, well mostly.

BoristheBiter

12th November 2012, 12:04

Brilliant idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States)!

thanks i knew you would agree.

unstuck

12th November 2012, 12:20

scissorhands

12th November 2012, 12:58

People who never drink can/will be dangerous after only half a beer
the same holds true both ways

Edbear

12th November 2012, 13:38

Easy fix. Just make it illegal to drive after any drink at all!! Done!
Drink is possibly legal due to one being able to have a couple of beers or a wine and not be affected as such, have 1 toke and you effected straight away.

At least the limit should be far lower than it is now! But that's only going to work if the courts get serious about penalties and stop using the wet bus ticket approach.

Blow over the limit, automatically lose the car for 28 days and still get a court summons or fine/loss of licence, etc. There is no excuse for driving drunk anymore!

oneofsix

12th November 2012, 13:45

At least the limit should be far lower than it is now! But that's only going to work if the courts get serious about penalties and stop using the wet bus ticket approach.

Blow over the limit, automatically lose the car for 28 days and still get a court summons or fine/loss of licence, etc. There is no excuse for driving drunk anymore!

Typical :bs: It is not the people that are at or just over the limit that are the problem so lowering the limit further is not going to fix the problem of those recidivists that blow 2 to 3 times the limit, if anything it makes it better for them as the system clogs up with the merry rather than the drunk and again the poor :Police: lose support and respect trying to enforce ill conceived knee jerk crap.

Edbear

12th November 2012, 13:50

Typical :bs: It is not the people that are at or just over the limit that are the problem so lowering the limit further is not going to fix the problem of those recidivists that blow 2 to 3 times the limit, if anything it makes it better for them as the system clogs up with the merry rather than the drunk and again the poor :Police: lose support and respect trying to enforce ill conceived knee jerk crap.

Unfortunately for your argument, current research, if anyone is keeping up, shows that the current limit is too high and people are affected adversely at the limit as it is.

Automatic loss of car/licence would also get the recidivist drivers as they are more obviously under the influence by their erratic driving and more of a target. The police have to have reasonable cause to believe you are under the influence in order to pull you over, so if your driving is fine, you are unlikely to get caught unless at a checkpoint.

blue rider

12th November 2012, 15:21

Yes it did happen it is true. maybe since you lived there it was just normal behavior?

As a tourist i was shocked at how bad it was never felt safe the whole week we where there.
I would have to say you are partially right about Amsterdam as the rest of the Netherlands is fantastic but the main reason they flock there is the drugs.
Remove the drugs remove the scum that is associated with them.

scum to you, taxed revenue to the netherlands.

fact is that this outdated model of allowing one drug to be consumed without hardly any restrictions and criminalsing other drugs is to be continued, people will flog to country like the netherlands and if it is only to experience the what the fuss is all about.

Lets criminalise alcohol use. no home brewing, all liqueor stores are dealers etc...see where I am going.
Fact is that some like weed and don't like alcohol, and vice versa. As long as the use of either does not harm the populace at large both should be permitted, albeit in a controlled manner.

Everything else is hypocrosy. As for nasty stoned people, I was born in bavaria, every year for the Octoberfest we have hundreds of thousands of mainly english/american/australian/kiwis making a spectacle out of themselves because they can't handle their alcohol. Again, like for Holland, it is tolerated, laughed about as it brings money to the city's coffers.

as for feeling safe? walk by a Pub on a friday night and I can guarantee you it is not very safe. Drunk people are agressive, loud, and full of themselves, and happy to fight for nothing at all. Scum, you would call them. Remove the alcohol and remove the scum.

BoristheBiter

12th November 2012, 15:58

scum to you, taxed revenue to the netherlands.

fact is that this outdated model of allowing one drug to be consumed without hardly any restrictions and criminalsing other drugs is to be continued, people will flog to country like the netherlands and if it is only to experience the what the fuss is all about.

Lets criminalise alcohol use. no home brewing, all liqueor stores are dealers etc...see where I am going.
Fact is that some like weed and don't like alcohol, and vice versa. As long as the use of either does not harm the populace at large both should be permitted, albeit in a controlled manner.

Everything else is hypocrosy. As for nasty stoned people, I was born in bavaria, every year for the Octoberfest we have hundreds of thousands of mainly english/american/australian/kiwis making a spectacle out of themselves because they can't handle their alcohol. Again, like for Holland, it is tolerated, laughed about as it brings money to the city's coffers.

as for feeling safe? walk by a Pub on a friday night and I can guarantee you it is not very safe. Drunk people are agressive, loud, and full of themselves, and happy to fight for nothing at all. Scum, you would call them. Remove the alcohol and remove the scum.

So the points I have gotten out of that is
1) you don't mind the problems drugs cause,
2) you think everything should be legal,
3) if it makes money then there is no problem,

BoristheBiter

12th November 2012, 16:01

scumdog

12th November 2012, 16:07

The police have to have reasonable cause to believe you are under the influence in order to pull you over, so if your driving is fine, you are unlikely to get caught unless at a checkpoint.

Uh, no Ed - remember the 'Anywhere -anytime' ad cmpaign?

No such thing as needing a 'reasonable cause to believe' anymore, went out with black&whites with cherries on top I suspect..

Edbear

12th November 2012, 16:12

Uh, no Ed - remember the 'Anywhere -anytime' ad cmpaign?

No such thing as needing a 'reasonable cause to believe' anymore, went out with black&whites with cherries on top I suspect..

I stand corrected, not that it worries me at all. Only time I get stopped is at a checkpoint.

scumdog

12th November 2012, 17:43

Easy fix. Just make it illegal to drive after any drink at all!! Done!
Drink is possibly legal due to one being able to have a couple of beers or a wine and not be affected as such, have 1 toke and you effected straight away.

It's coming, first just for the recidivists...:yes:

And the limit will be 250 instead of 400 in the near future, mark my words..:shifty:

blue rider

12th November 2012, 18:17

So the points I have gotten out of that is
1) you don't mind the problems drugs cause,
2) you think everything should be legal,
3) if it makes money then there is no problem,

no

a. what about as long as they (users of alcohol and other intoxicating substances) dont harm society and the populace at large do you not understand

a. controlled and supervised, will prevent abuse, take it away from the gangs and other organised crime

b. keeping drugs such as weed at the same legal level as alcohol, does not translate into 'everything should be legal

c. if it makes money in a capitalistic society there is no problem....this has been proven many many times, re: Cigarettes, very addictive, available everywhere, highly deadly but oh dear taxed to the hilt. everythime a pack gets sold the tax man smiles.

i am aware that my english sometimes is funney and phonetically, and yes I am fluent in germlish. But it appears that you can't read and understand plain english. So please Mr. Biter, sharpen your theeth and try again.

Bored now.

SMOKEU

12th November 2012, 18:30

scum to you, taxed revenue to the netherlands.

fact is that this outdated model of allowing one drug to be consumed without hardly any restrictions and criminalsing other drugs is to be continued, people will flog to country like the netherlands and if it is only to experience the what the fuss is all about.

Lets criminalise alcohol use. no home brewing, all liqueor stores are dealers etc...see where I am going.
Fact is that some like weed and don't like alcohol, and vice versa. As long as the use of either does not harm the populace at large both should be permitted, albeit in a controlled manner.

Everything else is hypocrosy. As for nasty stoned people, I was born in bavaria, every year for the Octoberfest we have hundreds of thousands of mainly english/american/australian/kiwis making a spectacle out of themselves because they can't handle their alcohol. Again, like for Holland, it is tolerated, laughed about as it brings money to the city's coffers.

as for feeling safe? walk by a Pub on a friday night and I can guarantee you it is not very safe. Drunk people are agressive, loud, and full of themselves, and happy to fight for nothing at all. Scum, you would call them. Remove the alcohol and remove the scum.

The difference is that stoned people are extremely unlikely to go around causing fights or vandalizing property compared to drunks.

scumdog

12th November 2012, 18:39

The difference is that stoned people are extremely unlikely to go around causing fights or vandalizing property compared to drunks.

If only all that they indulged in was cannabis...

007XX

12th November 2012, 18:45

If only all that they indulged in was cannabis...

So is it the norm for marijuana consummers to abuse of other substances at the same time?

I am genuinely just asking, as it's obviously difficult to get an unbiaised data source on this.

SMOKEU

12th November 2012, 19:48

If only all that they indulged in was cannabis...

So then the cannabis really has nothing to do with what they're doing.

onearmedbandit

12th November 2012, 19:49

If only all that they indulged in was cannabis...

So there we go, it's not the cannabis causing the problem, it's the combination of other drugs/poisons, most likely alcohol I'm guessing.

onearmedbandit

12th November 2012, 19:51

So is it the norm for marijuana consummers to abuse of other substances at the same time?

I am genuinely just asking, as it's obviously difficult to get an unbiaised data source on this.

Not amongst the very large number of cannabis smokers I know. In fact most of them avoid alcohol when smoking. No doubt though there are a large number who choose to do so, but as scummy points out it's not the cannabis that causes the issues, it's the other drugs.

scumdog

12th November 2012, 19:52

So then the cannabis really has nothing to do with what they're doing.

Possibly

But it shows a pattern of behavior and mind-set.

There's probably grass smokers that are the equal of single-malt whiskey connosiuers - they can have a quite one with no bother to anybody.

But I don't meet too many of them...

onearmedbandit

12th November 2012, 19:56

There's probably grass smokers that are the equal of single-malt whiskey connosiuers - they can have a quite one with no bother to anybody.

But I don't meet too many of them...

Yes you do. Every day in fact. You just don't recognise them.

scumdog

12th November 2012, 20:02

Yes you do. Every day in fact. You just don't recognise them.

Sort of how I don't recognise paedophiles etc??

(Ya know what I meant when I said I don't 'meet' too many off them!)

onearmedbandit

12th November 2012, 20:08

Sort of how I don't recognise paedophiles etc??

(Ya know what I meant when I said I don't 'meet' too many off them!)

I knew exactly what you meant. However your claim of 'probably' was what caught my eye. I was merely pointing out that there are lots of us.

SMOKEU

12th November 2012, 20:55

Yeah, it's not like everyone who tokes up is going to admit it to every police officer they ever encounter on an unrelated matter.

scissorhands

12th November 2012, 21:08

Instead of smoking cannabis, try infusing into milk and have with espresso or tea.
I then take sub-lingually, sipping VERY slowly over 20 minutes, with a lid on the cup to keep warm

Its a very easy and pleasant alternative.
Just be careful potentiating caffeine by sub lingual sipping, make a weak cup

Road kill

12th November 2012, 21:14

So is it the norm for marijuana consummers to abuse of other substances at the same time?

I am genuinely just asking, as it's obviously difficult to get an unbiaised data source on this.

No idea what "norm" is but about twice a month I drop in on an old mate an have a couple of tokes,but I don't drink at all now days.

My old mate tends to have a couple of beers at the same time.

I don't really get your "abuse" comment though,because I don't abuse weed and my mate doesn't abuse either weed or alcohol.

I actually think you'd have a very hard time finding an "average or a norm" to either smokers or drinkers.

My own belief is that some people smoke,drink,use P,eat whole packets of nutmeg or morning glory seeds or what ever else rocks their boat because they were already fucked up before they went down that particular road,,,,,but the much larger majority of smokers and drinkers are simply not abusing anything and don't suffer any ill effect from what their doing.

As for unbiased,I guess you could vist the NORML web site a read their comments on responsible use,,or you could read Scum dogs rants about how every smoker he meets is a scum bag loser.

Consider the source,an then make up your own mind on who's view is unbalanced.

Good luck with that aye.;)

Road kill

12th November 2012, 22:17

So there we go, it's not the cannabis causing the problem, it's the combination of other drugs/poisons, most likely alcohol I'm guessing.

Hope you never try to challenge the law with that argument.

No wonder so many anti weed types think all smokers are stupid:facepalm:

scumdog

13th November 2012, 04:56

Yeah, it's not like everyone who tokes up is going to admit it to every police officer they ever encounter on an unrelated matter.

You would be surprised how many do.

Except for the paranoid ones that is...

scumdog

13th November 2012, 05:00

My own belief is that some people smoke,drink,use P,eat whole packets of nutmeg or morning glory seeds or what ever else rocks their boat because they were already fucked up before they went down that particular road,,,,,but the much larger majority of smokers and drinkers are simply not abusing anything and don't suffer any ill effect from what their doing.

As for unbiased,I guess you could vist the NORML web site a read their comments on responsible use,,or you could read Scum dogs rants about how every smoker he meets is a scum bag loser.

The first paragraph I agree 100%

The second one I take umbrage with:weep:

Add 'work related' after 'every' and you would be somewhere near the mark.

Although lately it's been the pimply-faced oiks that are K2 smokers that come to notice.

scissorhands

13th November 2012, 05:38

Although lately it's been the pimply-faced oiks that are K2 smokers that come to notice.

That stuff is unsafe. For anyone prone to anxiety, or especially someone near a psychotic breakdown, even only a few days use such as I tried, I experienced some difficulties.
For anyone with underlying conditions ie: a nut job, it can be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Fittingly, anyone suffering these products negative effects would do well to partake of real cannabis for a few days/weeks.
The real McCoy is detoxifying and nerve settling. Real cannabis will accelerate reduction of synthetic cannabis behaviours.... and immediately treat and mitigate neurotic behaviours, till anxiety producing residues are finally excreted.

The minister has dragged his feet in this area of concern for kids, still in dairys

unstuck

13th November 2012, 06:23

Most of the people who are anti dope that I meet have never even tried it, weird. I really get the whole dole bludging,tinny house, playstation playing, pajama wearing , hate thing going on tho, cause I feel the same way about that part of society too. Not all people who like to smoke a little weed every now and then are like that.:Punk:

BoristheBiter

13th November 2012, 07:49

no

a. what about as long as they (users of alcohol and other intoxicating substances) dont harm society and the populace at large do you not understand

So where do you draw the line? some do P, coke etc without causing problems

a. controlled and supervised, will prevent abuse, take it away from the gangs and other organised crime

:facepalm:What, like alcohol and tobacco are supervised now? what do you think caused the mass influx of P? gangs where going to loose revenue from dope.

b. keeping drugs such as weed at the same legal level as alcohol, does not translate into 'everything should be legal

So again, where do you draw the line?

c. if it makes money in a capitalistic society there is no problem....this has been proven many many times, re: Cigarettes, very addictive, available everywhere, highly deadly but oh dear taxed to the hilt. everythime a pack gets sold the tax man smiles.

Never said I agreed with that it was your statment.

i am aware that my english sometimes is funney and phonetically, and yes I am fluent in germlish. But it appears that you can't read and understand plain english. So please Mr. Biter, sharpen your theeth and try again.

Bored now.

I see the worst side of most things and the bad side of drugs is pretty bad and making dope legal is not going to change that.

BoristheBiter

13th November 2012, 07:50

007XX

13th November 2012, 08:08

Possibly

But it shows a pattern of behavior and mind-set.

There's probably grass smokers that are the equal of single-malt whiskey connosiuers - they can have a quite one with no bother to anybody.

But I don't meet too many of them...

I can introduce you to at least 6 tomorrow, and that is just out of a greater number which I havebeen mates with for the last 10 years or more. One is a very succesful franchise owner / operator, another is a proeminent business manager in one of the biggest building companies in Auckland for example. The rest are your average bloke working their honest 8 til 5, no trouble with the law. All have families, participate in community events, etc

You wouldn't be able to tell that they indulge in a smoke on a leisurely basis.

Except for the paranoid ones that is...

Paranoid or private? Given the stigma attached to the consumption of cannabis, don't you think that people considered pillars of their community do not feel like sharing in what they do behind closed doors, just to be judged for it by people who do not have their perspective on it?

Very much the same as whatever goes on in the bedroom, and is still ever so much a taboo. Peer pressure to be accepted within society pushes people to be guarded on many a personal choice they make, day in, day out.

That stuff is unsafe. For anyone prone to anxiety, or especially someone near a psychotic breakdown, even only a few days use such as I tried, I experienced some difficulties.
For anyone with underlying conditions ie: a nut job, it can be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Fittingly, anyone suffering these products negative effects would do well to partake of real cannabis for a few days/weeks.
The real McCoy is detoxifying and nerve settling. Real cannabis will accelerate reduction of synthetic cannabis behaviours.... and immediately treat and mitigate neurotic behaviours, till anxiety producing residues are finally excreted.

The minister has dragged his feet in this area of concern for kids, still in dairys

Totally agree. I honestly thought the removal of that K2 crap was going to be enforced a lot more stringently.

How many teenagers suffer depressions, mood swings, etc
I hate to think what that stuff would do to them.

SMOKEU

13th November 2012, 08:18

It's a sad society we live in where a relatively harmless substance is illegal, yet the legal substitute is far for harmful.

Grubber

13th November 2012, 08:30

It's coming, first just for the recidivists...:yes:

And the limit will be 250 instead of 400 in the near future, mark my words..:shifty:

And i will have no problem with that at all thanks!

FJRider

13th November 2012, 08:43

scum to you, taxed revenue to the netherlands.

Did the introduction of legalised prostitution in NZ ... create a larger tax revenue for the Goverment ... ???

Or fixing some problems ... and creating more ... ???

Making it legal ... wont fix a problem.

jrandom

13th November 2012, 11:51

Did the introduction of legalised prostitution in NZ ... create a larger tax revenue for the Goverment ... ???

Or fixing some problems ... and creating more ... ???

Ask any prostitute and I think you'll find that it fixed more problems than it created.

The only reason for prostitution's illegality in the first place was its entanglement with the dubious question of morality and whether it's 'wrong' to exchange sex for money. Regulation rather than criminalisation is a no-brainer. You cannot change human sexual behaviour with legislation.

SMOKEU

13th November 2012, 12:11

You cannot change human sexual behaviour with legislation.

Same goes for people wanting to get high.

Fast Eddie

13th November 2012, 12:46

:psst: Only semi-seriously... I know that there are medicinal purposes for pot and all that, and it's the mildest of the harder drugs out there?
haha.. mildest of the harder drugs? Its much better than alcohol or tabacco which are stronger and more toxic.. and much better than any powders or pills the geezers will sell ya. prob even better than caffeine.

But then alcohol is medicinal too...

Every time I feel a cold coming on, I take a good swig of whiskey and go to sleep. My theory is that since alcohol is used to sterilise surgical instruments, and germs primarily travel around our body via our bloodstream as does alcohol, so having elevated levels of alcohol in our bloodstream cleanses us of the filthy bacteria and viruses causing us ill.

I'm guessing you're not a doctor..

BoristheBiter

13th November 2012, 12:53

haha.. mildest of the harder drugs? Its much better than alcohol or tabacco which are stronger and more toxic.. and much better than any powders or pills the geezers will sell ya. prob even better than caffeine.

Until it is made legal and then you will have the problem with dope.

It will never be better than caffeine.

Fast Eddie

13th November 2012, 13:00

Until it is made legal and then you will have the problem with dope.

Are you on the bong already, Boris? That didn't make sense..

Fast Eddie

13th November 2012, 13:03

It will never be better than caffeine.

personal preference.. exercise and good sleep so no need to keep myself awake with stimulants. caffeine just makes me all wired up

BoristheBiter

13th November 2012, 13:33

Are you on the bong already, Boris? That didn't make sense..

personal preference.. exercise and good sleep so no need to keep myself awake with stimulants. caffeine just makes me all wired up

What I meant to say before I was rudely uninterrupted by work was;

Not a lot of people smoke dope due to the fact that it is illegal so the bad side effects are not that common.
If it is made legal then more will smoke it and the side effects will increase until we are left where we are now with tobacco.

Caffeine has no effect on me :facepalm: until i stop taking it.

imdying

13th November 2012, 13:35

Not a lot of people smoke dopeDo you have some sort of one eyed book that this comes from, or are you just making it up as you go along?

BoristheBiter

13th November 2012, 13:42

Do you have some sort of one eyed book that this comes from, or are you just making it up as you go along?

It comes from the KB book of facts.

Actually if was from an interview on ZB last night from a spokesman from some legalize dope group.

he said something about was 13%, ninth in the oecd figures from the UN.

imdying

13th November 2012, 13:48

570000 people isn't a lot? That's more people than have a motorcycle license in New Zealand.

onearmedbandit

13th November 2012, 13:57

Hope you never try to challenge the law with that argument.

No wonder so many anti weed types think all smokers are stupid:facepalm:

Gee and I thought it was such a water tight argument as well.

(Let me explain it to you. It was a tongue in cheek response to those that ignore other influences and lay the blame solely on weed.)

BoristheBiter

13th November 2012, 13:59

570000 people isn't a lot? That's more people than have a motorcycle license in New Zealand.

compared to the 3730000 that don't, no.

Shaun

13th November 2012, 15:55

Shit, I didnt realise it was illegal, I best go and pull my 37 plants out and burn them ( In Zig Zags of course- sorry Orificer

24 years ago I was in prison, ( Visiting of course) and even there the wacky backy was chaft up regually, NZ is full of Pot

Hense the promotions

'' Keep NZ Green''

unstuck

13th November 2012, 15:57

A mate of mine came over to reshape some of his shearing gear today and we had a small joint in the sun afterwards. Then we went on with our lives, we never killed anyone or stole anyones shit either, funny, was expecting to suddenly turn into a drug crazed lunatic, whos gonna start pushing tinnys on the kids coming past on their way home from school.Guess you cant belive everything you read on KB.:motu:

unstuck

13th November 2012, 16:00

Shaun

14th November 2012, 06:24

Some of the best weed I have tried was in mount eden prison.;)

Punching a policemen and driving whilst disqaulified got me a visit to Waikeria ( I never punched the policeman!)

The pot that was floating around in there really amazed me, just like some thing out of the movies

I stopped smoking when I started racing, and never craved it simple, it was an easy process of just stopping, not like cigarettes

Lots of people I know smoke pot, and some of these people hold very serious employment positions including owning buisnesses that employ a lot of staff and they are doing just fine.

Pot being related to the real bad drugs is just really naieve of our leaders

007XX

14th November 2012, 06:33

'' Keep NZ Green''

Pot being related to the real bad drugs is just really naieve of our leaders

I vote for a scheme whereas the proper education of said govenrment leaders be carried out immediately, if not sooner :doobey:

Shaun

14th November 2012, 07:11

I vote for a scheme whereas the proper education of said govenrment leaders be carried out immediately, if not sooner :doobey:

That would just be a waste of more NZ tax payers money mate, I vote that the NZ goverment look at other countries that have taken this seriously and how they have acted towards it, and get there fingers out of there arses

unstuck

14th November 2012, 07:26

mashman

14th November 2012, 08:19

I can go for a couple of years without having a puff and I does not bother me. Other times I may have a smoke everyday. I know a lot of different people who smoke weed, from policemen(one of whom was from the same policing district as scummy) who would like to have a toke and a drink in the hut after a good hunt in fiordland, to doctors who work in A&E who get to see alcohol related fuck ups every weekend. Education is the key IMO. Keep hitting the lazy fuckers who want to sit on their arses all day and collect the bennie, playing bullshit playstation games, selling tinnys and just generally bludging off the rest of society. But leave the otherwise decent members of society alone to grow a little for their own use.

In a similar position here too. Had a couple of years smoking just about every day, generally 2 single lightly sprinkled singles in an evening. Used to know of many professions that did similar back in the UK and know of a few guys that smoke over here, even in front of those who don't :shit:... they don't care as they've seen the affect on the person and realise that it isn't doing them any harm, so why get on their high horse over it.

Big +1 on education. Although I still think that that is the responsibility of the parent, not TV Ads. Leave the lazy fuckers where they are, else they'll be putting in 10% effort in a job that someone else would put 100% into, which is hardly fair to the employer of those who are willing to work. Who knows, they may even open up a special cafe and become "productive citizens/decent members of society"... but we'll never know until we find out. In fact we should grow more than enough and hand it out to those who can't afford it. It'll stop the from thieving etc... to get it :yes:... or isn't that the point :eek:

BoristheBiter

14th November 2012, 08:19

SMOKEU

14th November 2012, 08:46

What I meant to say before I was rudely uninterrupted by work was;

Not a lot of people smoke dope due to the fact that it is illegal so the bad side effects are not that common.
If it is made legal then more will smoke it and the side effects will increase until we are left where we are now with tobacco.

What side effects?

But that there is the biggest problem, same as with alcohol, speed (vehicle not the drug) etc, people are going to fuck it up so everyone else suffers.

WTF are you on about?

skippa1

14th November 2012, 08:57

You wont change the minds of law abiding (other than smoking cannibis) people that work for a living and enjoy a quiet toke. And thats probably ok. I struggle with the message that it is the lesser of two evils, or harmless and that we should legalise. Weed has a very negative effect on our developing teenagers that have emo tendancies these days. It effectively stalls the physical development of the brain. Kids sieze on the message of their fathers and justify the interuption of their brain development , which many will never recover from. My view is that we are seeing a whole lost generation of kids that have no direction, a lot have fathers that either dont care or are not there to support them. Alcohol is readily and legally available to them, we are trying to make weed legal and readily available to them, P is frying the weaker ones...........what message are we actually giving our kids?

scissorhands

14th November 2012, 08:59

But that there is the biggest problem, same as with alcohol, speed (vehicle not the drug) etc, people are going to fuck it up so everyone else suffers.

The main group of people really suffering unfairly are the normal cannabis users, of which there are many.
Much of their suffering is at the hands of the state and police, which tell everyone else they are bad people. My parents believed the fucking drongoes and I was vilified amongst family and associates.

Yet all the while my disliked behaviours are mostly due to genetic autism and bad parenting.
I cant change and be one of you, so go fuck yourself.

My fantastic parents, had my mouth full of mercury at age 14 yrs old, TV 2-6hrs a day, and a junk food diet from birth. I was manifesting the symptoms of chronic degenerative dis-ease by 15yrs old....

And then Dad writes me out of the will because I like cannabis..... AND he was a fucking abusive alcoholic dick!

Those who support prohibition are causing a similar or greater amount of suffering as the regular user via the act of using.

If my shithead doctors had steered me right re autism, maybe things would be different.... I reached out for 20 years trying to get answers for my undiagnosed autisms.

Mostly I got bad science, guilt, grief, blame and self loathing. Cunts

Eventually I found out about aspergers via NumberOnes thread on KB rant and rave. Thanks KB. A caring woman biker did what doctors and therapists failed to do. Pricks

Do you want some more suffering examples? I got lots to show you

skippa1

14th November 2012, 09:03

The main group of people really suffering unfairly are the normal cannabis users, of which there are many.

what are they "really suffering" from?

scissorhands

14th November 2012, 09:08

what are they "really suffering" from?

Persecution, I recently had a lawyer not work for me, as well as being unfairly vilified.
Many NZers class stoners as bad people worthy of derision, some idiots probably think it leads to rape, thanks to prohibitionists.

How about the recent media re cannabis and low IQ etc..... dont see any media about TV, junk food or booze!!!!

Then there is the medical fraternity..... meh

Look at this thread. Common garden variety NZers are defending their fairly benign and maybe even sensible choices..... here to gubbermint authorities who keep threatening to kick their ass for breaking the law

skippa1

14th November 2012, 09:15

Persecution, I recently had a lawyer not work for me, as well as being unfairly vilified.
Many NZers class stoners as bad people worthy of derision, some idiots probably think it leads to rape, thanks to prohibitionists

Then there is the medical fraternity..... meh

What sort of persecution FFS?

Many NZers class stoners as bad people worthy of derision, some idiots probably think it leads to rape, thanks to prohibitionists Hardly scientific or based on any sort of fact

Then there is the medical fraternity..... meh

Are you saying that the medical fraternity have it wrong?

BoristheBiter

14th November 2012, 09:29

What side effects?

WTF are you on about?

I rest my case

The main group of people really suffering unfairly are the normal cannabis users, of which there are many.
Much of their suffering is at the hands of the state and police, which tell everyone else they are bad people. My parents believed the fucking drongoes and I was vilified amongst family and associates.

Yet all the while my disliked behaviours are mostly due to genetic autism and bad parenting.
I cant change and be one of you, so go fuck yourself.

My fantastic parents, had my mouth full of mercury at age 14 yrs old, TV 2-6hrs a day, and a junk food diet from birth. I was manifesting the symptoms of chronic degenerative dis-ease by 15yrs old....

And then Dad writes me out of the will because I like cannabis..... AND he was a fucking abusive alcoholic dick!

Those who support prohibition are causing a similar or greater amount of suffering as the regular user via the act of using.

If my shithead doctors had steered me right re autism, maybe things would be different.... I reached out for 20 years trying to get answers for my undiagnosed autisms.

Mostly I got guilt and grief and blame and self loathing. Cunts

Big chip on your shoulder me thinks, "BOO HOO the world has been so mean to me" get the fuck over it and move on.

Maybe you should go back and read the post properly then have another go.

imdying

14th November 2012, 09:36

What sort of persecution FFS?Social persecution... he said as much in the first post you quoted (FFS). Not that it matters, you're just baiting him so you can go 'is that all, what about....'.

imdying

14th November 2012, 09:38

Maybe you should go back and read the post properly then have another go.Maybe you should... it actually says and adds nothing.

SMOKEU

14th November 2012, 09:52

I rest my case

All you've proved so far is that you've either never smoked buds before, or that you're a mindless sheep who believes all government propaganda.

skippa1

14th November 2012, 10:10

Social persecution... he said as much in the first post you quoted (FFS). Not that it matters, you're just baiting him so you can go 'is that all, what about....'.

bullshit.

Persecution:
a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs

really? You really think that society treats him this way?

you're just baiting him so you can go 'is that all, what about....

No, I just think that his claim of social persecution may be in his own mind. I can understand (and dont agree with by the way) his claims of family vilifying him because of his smoking weed, but I think that he is exagerating societies reaction to a weed smoker.

imdying

14th November 2012, 10:29

bullshit.No it's not, you're a walking talking example. Although, I will give you credit for 'exaggerating', there's a little of that going on for sure.

skippa1

14th November 2012, 10:37

No it's not, you're a walking talking example. Although, I will give you credit for 'exaggerating', there's a little of that going on for sure.

so how pray tell am I persecuting him, or any weed smoker?

imdying

14th November 2012, 10:46

so how pray tell am I persecuting him, or any weed smoker?By belittling his opinion because it does not match your own. By using arguments that aren't real... you think he believes we should be supplying kids with dope? You think anyone believes that? He just wants to enjoy his choice of herb, not pull down society.

skippa1

14th November 2012, 10:56

By belittling his opinion because it does not match your own. By using arguments that aren't real... you think he believes we should be supplying kids with dope? You think anyone believes that? He just wants to enjoy his choice of herb, not pull down society.

By belittling his opinion because it does not match your own where did I say or infer his opinion should match mine? I simply asked him to justify his claim with some fact.

By using arguments that aren't real... you think he believes we should be supplying kids with dope? Fuck me, you have a good imagination
You think anyone believes that? I dont believe that......its your warped imagination that read that

He just wants to enjoy his choice of herb, not pull down society Again....for the hard of hearing.....he is welcome to. I just wanted to know how society had inflicted on him "a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate him because of his beliefs"

imdying

14th November 2012, 11:03

SMOKEU

14th November 2012, 11:07

I just wanted to know how society had inflicted on him "a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate him because of his beliefs"

The fact that it's illegal in the first place, and because many employers request drug tests, and because of the social stigma associated with it.

scissorhands

14th November 2012, 11:10

Again....for the hard of hearing.....he is welcome to. I just wanted to know how society had inflicted on him "a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate him because of his beliefs"

Fuck it. If you cant see it, I'm not going to hold your hand through what most others understand instinctively [hehe].
Persecution does not always involve extermination or driving away.... Stop subjagating me to your bad science and faulty reasonings

Lack of empathy? meh....

skippa1

14th November 2012, 11:16

The fact that it's illegal in the first place, and because many employers request drug tests, and because of the social stigma associated with it.

Thats weak. As an employer, I am required by law to keep my staff safe from harm. If they are involved in an incident or accident, they may be drug and alchohol tested and I may be prosecuted if they are found to be impaired. Flip it the other way, one of my drivers is loaded up and driving 44 tonne rig down the road, he had a quick toke before work. He looses concentration for a moment, looks up to see your wife/girlfriends/kids faces disappearing below his bumper. Are you happy if I havent ensured he is fit for work? Are you happy if the law hasnt ensured that I test him as they didnt want weed smokers to feel persecuted? What about if he was hung over instead of stoned? (Itest for both and have a breathalyser they must use if I have reasonable doubt)

skippa1

14th November 2012, 11:22

Further manipulation... you must know full well that that particular acute definition is not the only one.

no its not the only one you are correct, however using any number of other definitions, I still dont see people getting persecuted for smoking weed. They get ignored in garden bars, concerts, at the beach, in their own homes, as long as they dont put themselves in front of the law through their actions, they dont get prosecuted either. I myself have had the blind eye turned by the police when caught smoking weed.

I ask again....what persecution?

skippa1

14th November 2012, 11:24

Lack of empathy? meh....

why should I feel empathy for you in regard to smoking weed. I dont see any persecution except from your own family, and as you have already pointed out, they are fucked up. I feel empathy for you for having a fucked up family, but thats not what this is about ......aye.

007XX

14th November 2012, 11:31

Thats weak. As an employer, I am required by law to keep my staff safe from harm. If they are involved in an incident or accident, they may be drug and alchohol tested and I may be prosecuted if they are found to be impaired. Flip it the other way, one of my drivers is loaded up and driving 44 tonne rig down the road, he had a quick toke before work. He looses concentration for a moment, looks up to see your wife/girlfriends/kids faces disappearing below his bumper. Are you happy if I havent ensured he is fit for work? Are you happy if the law hasnt ensured that I test him as they didnt want weed smokers to feel persecuted? What about if he was hung over instead of stoned? (Itest for both and have a breathalyser they must use if I have reasonable doubt)

That is a very valid point to be fair.

And this is truly the Achille's heel of any defensive stance on drug use: how to guarantee that people will use it responsibly.

PS: please note that within the term of drug, I encompass over-the-counter meds, alcohol, weed, etc

SMOKEU

14th November 2012, 11:38

Thats weak. As an employer, I am required by law to keep my staff safe from harm. If they are involved in an incident or accident, they may be drug and alchohol tested and I may be prosecuted if they are found to be impaired. Flip it the other way, one of my drivers is loaded up and driving 44 tonne rig down the road, he had a quick toke before work. He looses concentration for a moment, looks up to see your wife/girlfriends/kids faces disappearing below his bumper. Are you happy if I havent ensured he is fit for work? Are you happy if the law hasnt ensured that I test him as they didnt want weed smokers to feel persecuted? What about if he was hung over instead of stoned? (Itest for both and have a breathalyser they must use if I have reasonable doubt)

Seshing up on the job is no worse than someone showing up to work with a severe lack of sleep or a hangover.

skippa1

14th November 2012, 11:46

Seshing up on the job is no worse than someone showing up to work with a severe lack of sleep or a hangover.

That is also weak. Trying to compare three bad behaviours is no justification for being impaired at work, no matter the reason or cause of impairment. I said that I breath test and that includes those that are hung over, smell of alchohol, talk about their big night. Day after pay day is the biggy. And lack of sleep is pretty evident too (although these days most people dont even bother to turn up if they are tired, they dont notify you either)

007XX

14th November 2012, 11:47

Seshing up on the job is no worse than someone showing up to work with a severe lack of sleep or a hangover.

Doesn't diminish the extent of the employer's responsibility towards ensuring his employees are fit to carry out the work safely.

I understand that the point you are trying to make is that if lacking in sleep or hangovered, you only get sent home. However, if found to have had a smoke, you get fired.

But give enough reccurences of the no sleep / hangovered scenario, and you will get fired too. Its just a more complicated process on the employer's part.

So I think it's a moot point in all honesty.

SMOKEU

14th November 2012, 11:48

That is also weak. Trying to compare three bad behaviours is no justification for being impaired at work, no matter the reason or cause of impairment. I said that I breath test and that includes those that are hung over, smell of alchohol, talk about their big night. Day after pay day is the biggy. And lack of sleep is pretty evident too (although these days most people dont even bother to turn up if they are tired, they dont notify you either)

Where exactly then do you "draw the line" at impairment? What if someone is sick, maybe with a cold or flu. How would you treat that?

scissorhands

14th November 2012, 11:50

why should I feel empathy for you in regard to smoking weed. I dont see any persecution except from your own family, and as you have already pointed out, they are fucked up. I feel empathy for you for having a fucked up family, but thats not what this is about ......aye.

I think it is. Many users come from less than ideal parentings, undiagnosed disorders, hidden disabilities, abusive upbringings.
If you really did have empthy for similar others and me and my fucked up family[thanks dick face] you would understand this

I maintain the claim. No empathy. Also no logic. Your arguements are so full of holes its laughable, and an ongoing example of other KB members constantly correcting all your written fallacies and dishonest reasonings and corrupted logic

SMOKEU

14th November 2012, 11:56

skippa1

14th November 2012, 12:03

Where exactly then do you "draw the line" at impairment? What if someone is sick, maybe with a cold or flu. How would you treat that?

You have to draw the line with what we can measure and test for first and foremost, then you can apply common sense and reasoning to sickness, and I have sent many to the doctor at my expense to get a professional opinion. Having said that, I will send home sick people, if for no other reason than the fact that they can bring down the whole team with a sickness.

skippa1

14th November 2012, 12:12

I think it is. Many users come from less than ideal parentings, undiagnosed disorders, hidden disabilities, abusive upbringings.
If you really did have empthy for similar others and me and my fucked up family[thanks dick face] you would understand this

I maintain the claim. No empathy. Also no logic. Your arguements are so full of holes its laughable, and an ongoing example of other KB members constantly correcting all your written fallacies and dishonest reasonings and corrupted logic

thanks dick face I only quoted you. You said it in a public forum.

I maintain the claim. No empathy. Also no logic. Your arguements are so full of holes its laughable, and an ongoing example of other KB members constantly correcting all your written fallacies and dishonest reasonings and corrupted logic

I feel empathy for those that have been honest in their protestations, however you have not pointed out the fact around a claim of social persecution. As previously stated, I have empathy for you and your family issues, but I dont see that lasting