California Prop 19 - Legalize Pot
WD
http://yeson19.com/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legalization_justice
It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
and elsewhere.
One particular fact stood out to me today. 28,000 people have died in
Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
That's like having nine September 11's. Osama suddenly doesn't seem
all that bad compared to the moralizing morons who think they are
saving their kids by supporting prohibition.
Weihana.
Richard McGrath
> http://yeson19.com/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legaliza...
>
> It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
> favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
> the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
> prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>
> If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
> it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
> and elsewhere.
>
> One particular fact stood out to me today. 28,000 people have died in
> Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
> That's like having nine September 11's. Osama suddenly doesn't seem
> all that bad compared to the moralizing morons who think they are
> saving their kids by supporting prohibition.
>
> Weihana.
Yes, the senseless slaughter you describe could have been largely
avoided if governments stopped trying to determine what people can and
can't put into their own bodies.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<826de9c3-55eb-4be9...@w38g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, WD
wrote:
> One particular fact stood out to me today. 28,000 people have died in
> Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
That’s driven by two things: the demand for illegal drugs from the US, and
the easy supply of guns from the US.
Cutting back on just one of these things could make so much difference...
Geopelia
"Richard McGrath" <richard.gra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:222d5f7e-8770-4f74...@b9g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
------------
Or if people had a bit of common sense and made the right decision.
Tobacco is bad enough for the lungs, without addling their brains as well.
WD
> "Richard McGrath" <richard.graham.mcgr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:222d5f7e-8770-4f74...@b9g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 19, 8:56 pm, WD <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
> > favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
> > the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
> > prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>
> > If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
> > it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
> > and elsewhere.
>
> > One particular fact stood out to me today. 28,000 people have died in
> > Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
> > That's like having nine September 11's. Osama suddenly doesn't seem
> > all that bad compared to the moralizing morons who think they are
> > saving their kids by supporting prohibition.
>
> > Weihana.
>
> Yes, the senseless slaughter you describe could have been largely
> avoided if governments stopped trying to determine what people can and
> can't put into their own bodies.
>
> ------------
>
> Or if people had a bit of common sense and made the right decision.
> Tobacco is bad enough for the lungs, without addling their brains as well.
So the loss of 28000 lives is worth trying to save people from making
unhealthy decisions? I would've thought death was the epitome of bad
health.
The world would be great if everyone made all the "right" choices, but
policy should be based on reality not some Victorian fantasy of what
life should be. Certainly no one deserves to be in jail stripped of
their freedom and dignity because there is concern over their health.
Weihana.
hellicopter
Rubbish. Some people are flakes from birth, legalizing pot will
be a huge cost to the mental health service as they are pushed
into mental aberration by general use of pot.
Sure I 100% agree that pot should be legal, but like Alcohol
we don't let those it will obviously harm buy alcohol. A
lot of very intelligent people are alive without pot, and
a lot of dull people remain dull without pot. Now sure
help the dull people who need pot to dream more liberally,
but don't harm the flake genius of the existing population.
There were good reasons to ban pot.
Allistar
>
> http://yeson19.com/
>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legalization_justice
>
> It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
> favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
> the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
> prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>
> If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
> it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
> and elsewhere.
Yes. I've fount the "Tea Party" movement to be quite interesting. They want
all laws to be reviewed and compared against what is allowed for in the
constitution. They want any laws that the constitution doesn't allow for to
be repealed. I think that's an excellent start. Having read the relevant
part of the constitution, I think more needs to be done though - that
document itself allows for too many liberties to be removed.
> One particular fact stood out to me today. 28,000 people have died in
> Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
> That's like having nine September 11's. Osama suddenly doesn't seem
> all that bad compared to the moralizing morons who think they are
> saving their kids by supporting prohibition.
>
>
> Weihana.
--
The fear of libertarianism is the terror that the mediocre feel at the
possibility of being judged on their merits.
Geopelia
"WD" <tuar...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1afeca93-601f-4515...@v20g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Weihana.
If people are smoking the stuff that's one thing, if they are selling it to
others, especially to children, it is quite another.
Let's hope all the 28000 were drug dealers. But I suspect some were just
collateral damage.
Roger Dewhurst
If there is a dispute about the appropriate policy, as there clearly is,
why not have one law for the North Island and one for the South and see
which works best? When I advocated the same principle for firearms
law some people, notably Cliffie, went berserk!!!!!!
R
Rich...@hotmail.com
>WD wrote:
>
>>
>> http://yeson19.com/
>>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legalization_justice
>>
>> It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
>> favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
>> the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
>> prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>>
>> If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
>> it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
>> and elsewhere.
>
>Yes. I've fount the "Tea Party" movement to be quite interesting. They want
>all laws to be reviewed and compared against what is allowed for in the
>constitution. They want any laws that the constitution doesn't allow for to
>be repealed. I think that's an excellent start. Having read the relevant
>part of the constitution, I think more needs to be done though - that
>document itself allows for too many liberties to be removed.
Many of the USA laws have of course been through just such rigourous
review - including appeals to their Supreme Court. But the "Tea Party"
wouldn't know about that, would they . . .
Kuee
> "Richard McGrath" <richard.graham.mcgr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:222d5f7e-8770-4f74...@b9g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 19, 8:56 pm, WD <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
> > favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
> > the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
> > prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>
> > If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
> > it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
> > and elsewhere.
>
> > One particular fact stood out to me today. 28,000 people have died in
> > Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
> > That's like having nine September 11's. Osama suddenly doesn't seem
> > all that bad compared to the moralizing morons who think they are
> > saving their kids by supporting prohibition.
>
> > Weihana.
>
> Yes, the senseless slaughter you describe could have been largely
> avoided if governments stopped trying to determine what people can and
> can't put into their own bodies.
>
> ------------
>
> Or if people had a bit of common sense and made the right decision.
> Tobacco is bad enough for the lungs, without addling their brains as well.
Have you ever experienced pain so badly, you wish you could just go to
sleep and never wake up, then discovered a very small amount of
marijuana can help diminish that pain significantly for several hours.
Do you know the pain of glaucoma and the facts that prove marijuana
can assist in this common pain also, have you ever had chemotherapy
with all the pain and nausea associated with it, only to know that a
small amount of marijuana can give you respite, even if only for a few
hours? I still believe that at the very least NZ should decriminalize
Mary Jane, would also save a whole heap of money, not only in the
field of pharmaceuticals, but also in police time, stalking and
arresting petty growers, when the big buggers get away with paddocks
full of it. If NZ wont decriminalize it, at least allow for medicinal
purposes, this can be monitored and regulated like any other
medication, and even the "professionals" are seeing the amazing
benefits of marijuana, if a person chooses to allow this drug into
their system, as they choose to put one of the worlds most lethal
drugs in their mouths, (Paracetamol) then they have the responsibility
to take care of any secondary effects MJ may produce, ie psychosis
(and you do not have to be dangerous to be psychotic) memory loss,
lung cancer and many others problems associated with putting anything
other then oxygen into their own lungs.
I wish NZ would have more Prop19 type of amendments, they give the
people of the country the chance to speak out, where as in NZ, they
(being those in parliament) get to speak on behalf of how many million
people in NZ, with minimal research or experience, at least when the
Americans put forward a prop, Americans get to speak, unlike our
country when we entrust a very small band of people to speak for us on
anything and everything. I do not have any great desire to move to
America, but at least they let people have their say.
Peter K
news:i9lbna$kh0$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
You are bloody well on to something there! And we could do it with lots of
stuff - not only dope or firearms, but things like government, tax and user
pays etc. I say the South Island should become an independent state!
Kuee
> Richard McGrath wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 8:56 pm, WD <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
And just as many good arguments for it, hell you can buy lethal
amounts of paracetamol at any supermarket, but is anything done about
that given the number of deaths and liver problems attributed to a
drug that is not only legal, but flaunted amongst our bread and milk,
just next to the cat food. I still go for decriminalization or at very
least, an allowance for those willing to consume it as a better option
to the pain and other symptoms even drugs as strong as morphine cannot
control.
WorkHard
Well, he is a berserka!
Kuee
> "WD" <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
I agree, dealing the stuff to kids, or even in large amounts should
still be illegal, but 1 ounce per person? God a pack of 10
paracetamol tablets can do much more damage if not used as prescribed.
Allistar
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:10:28 +1300, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>
>>WD wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://yeson19.com/
>>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legalization_justice
>>>
>>> It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
>>> favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
>>> the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
>>> prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>>>
>>> If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
>>> it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
>>> and elsewhere.
>>
>>Yes. I've fount the "Tea Party" movement to be quite interesting. They
>>want all laws to be reviewed and compared against what is allowed for in
>>the constitution. They want any laws that the constitution doesn't allow
>>for to be repealed. I think that's an excellent start. Having read the
>>relevant part of the constitution, I think more needs to be done though -
>>that document itself allows for too many liberties to be removed.
>
> Many of the USA laws have of course been through just such rigourous
> review - including appeals to their Supreme Court. But the "Tea Party"
> wouldn't know about that, would they . . .
Don't know - you'd have to ask them.
I can't see anywhere in article One, section 8 of the constitution where the
state has the right to prohibit same sex or polygamous marriages. I wonder
what the legal basis for those liberty limiting laws are.
WD
> "WD" <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
Ok, so lets put it another way. You think it's okay to see 28000
people die just so you can try to prevent *adults* from trading in a
substance that harms no one?
You present a very callous attitude towards human life. "Lets hope
all the 28000 were drug dealers". As if a person deserves to die
because they trade in drugs. Does an alcohol retailer deserve to die
for trading alcohol? Ok so alcohol is legal, but the nature of the
activity is surely comparable. Is the alcohol retailer responsible
for the large numbers of alcohol related deaths every year? Of course
not.
The drug trade is violent, and deadly, precisely because it is
prohibited. Unlike legal industries which resolve disputes through
advertising and litigation, unregulated and illegal industries resolve
them through violence. The dismissive attitude towards 28000 deaths
demonstrates that those who support prohibition have little regard for
human welfare or life. All they care about is trying to impose their
own standards of moral righteousness on others and if 28000 people
have to die in the process then so be it.
Weihana.
WD
Why large amounts? Why should it be illegal at all? It would seem to
me that limiting it to an ounce undermines the state's ability to
collect tax revenue from the sale of marijuana because it encourages
personal growing rather than commercial enterprises. Though on the
other hand, large producers would be easy targets for federal agents.
Ultimately drug law reform shouldn't be based on an ability to collect
tax revenue (even if its an effective marketing strategy for the
proposition). People should realize that reform is a good idea
because it's the moral thing to do and that too many people are
stripped of their freedom unnecessarily and too many people are harmed
as a result of prohibition.
Weihana.
WD
> Richard McGrath wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 8:56 pm, WD <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
You have not provided any good reasons to ban pot. There is no
evidence that legalizing pot will be a "huge cost" to the mental
health service. Where pot has been legalized there has not been a
huge blowout in mental health costs. In places like California where
pot has a quasi legal status life goes on as normal. It goes on as
normal because usage is not determined by legal status. If heroin
were legalized people aren't going to suddenly think "gee I want to
take heroin".
Not sure what you mean by not selling alcohol to people it will harm,
though I would agree it should be restricted to children. But that is
an argument *for* legalization since with legalization comes the
ability to regulate the trade. A drug dealer doesn't ask for ID,
legal retailers do. Pot is much easier to obtain for children than
alcohol is.
Weihana.
WD
> Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:10:28 +1300, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>
> >>WD wrote:
>
> >>>http://yeson19.com/
>
>
> >>> It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
> >>> favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
> >>> the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
> >>> prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>
> >>> If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
> >>> it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
> >>> and elsewhere.
>
> >>Yes. I've fount the "Tea Party" movement to be quite interesting. They
> >>want all laws to be reviewed and compared against what is allowed for in
> >>the constitution. They want any laws that the constitution doesn't allow
> >>for to be repealed. I think that's an excellent start. Having read the
> >>relevant part of the constitution, I think more needs to be done though -
> >>that document itself allows for too many liberties to be removed.
>
> > Many of the USA laws have of course been through just such rigourous
> > review - including appeals to their Supreme Court. But the "Tea Party"
> > wouldn't know about that, would they . . .
>
> Don't know - you'd have to ask them.
>
> I can't see anywhere in article One, section 8 of the constitution where the
> state has the right to prohibit same sex or polygamous marriages. I wonder
> what the legal basis for those liberty limiting laws are.
I would argue that such discrimination goes against the 14th amendment
and in particular the equal protection clause. I agree though it does
seem the power of the federal government is too broadly interpreted.
The country is called the "United States" after all. It is a union of
different states. Yet the federal government's power is vast and
doesn't, in my view, reflect the original intent of the constitution.
Weihana.
WD
>
>
>
> > It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
> > favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
> > the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
> > prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>
> > If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
> > it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
> > and elsewhere.
>
> Yes. I've fount the "Tea Party" movement to be quite interesting. They want
> all laws to be reviewed and compared against what is allowed for in the
> constitution. They want any laws that the constitution doesn't allow for to
> be repealed. I think that's an excellent start. Having read the relevant
> part of the constitution, I think more needs to be done though - that
> document itself allows for too many liberties to be removed.
The Supreme Court already provides this function. Laws can be
challenged and thrown out if they are unconstitutional.
The Tea Party looks a bit kooky to me. A right wing reaction to Obama
with some decent sounding arguments but also a lot of populous
nonsense.
Weihana.
WD
> On 19/10/2010 8:56 p.m., WD wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://yeson19.com/
>
> > It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
> > favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
> > the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
> > prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>
> > If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
> > it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
> > and elsewhere.
>
> > One particular fact stood out to me today. 28,000 people have died in
> > Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
> > That's like having nine September 11's. Osama suddenly doesn't seem
> > all that bad compared to the moralizing morons who think they are
> > saving their kids by supporting prohibition.
>
> > Weihana.
>
> If there is a dispute about the appropriate policy, as there clearly is,
> why not have one law for the North Island and one for the South and see
> which works best? When I advocated the same principle for firearms
> law some people, notably Cliffie, went berserk!!!!!!
>
> R
Well to be fair, if the situation were reversed and drugs were legal I
wouldn't support prohibitionists testing their theory on one of the
Islands. Ultimately I think this is a case where policy should be
changed because it's so blindingly obvious that the law needs to be
reformed. The rational and evidenced based arguments are on the side
of those who support reform. The irrational fear and nonsense comes
from those who continue to support prohibition. What is needed is a
rational debate about why the status quo isn't working and how harm
can be reduced. The answer to these questions will be provided by
those who advocate reform.
Weihana.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Or if people had a bit of common sense and made the right decision.
> Tobacco is bad enough for the lungs, without addling their brains as well.
You drink coffee or tea, don’t you? Occasional alcohol as well? Those are
drugs.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> I say the South Island should become an independent state!
Then it can fund its own development out of its own tax base, instead of
relying on North Island taxpayers. That would go down really well, I
imagine...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<d98fcdf2-606b-4ccd...@w38g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, WD
wrote:
> Where pot has been legalized there has not been a huge blowout in mental
> health costs.
Or any other costs, for that matter.
I believe Portugal has recently followed the example of the Netherlands in
introducing a bit more rationality into its marijuana laws.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<5d4d42e4-6557-45b7...@35g2000prt.googlegroups.com>, WD
wrote:
> Ultimately drug law reform shouldn't be based on an ability to collect
> tax revenue (even if its an effective marketing strategy for the
> proposition).
Great way to sell it to politicans, though. If they’re collecting lots of
taxes from something, they become very reluctant to discourage or ban it.
Look at the long struggle in getting governments to take the ill effects
from tobacco smoking seriously.
(And no, I’m not trying to say marijuana is as harmful as tobacco...)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<177ed7f9-e28a-40b4...@h37g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, WD
wrote:
> The drug trade is violent, and deadly, precisely because it is
> prohibited.
Our very own Police Minister, I believe it was, just a few months ago,
admitted, quite proudly, that she counted the war on P to be a success
pretty much solely on the basis that it drove the street price up. She
seemed oblivious to the idea that a high street price contributes to the
violence of the crimes surrounding P; after all, that’s entirely the fault
of the drug, nothing to do with the enforcement campaign, right?
Peter K
news:i9loeb$rf2$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Absolutely - that would be part of the experiment.
Geopelia
"Kuee" <kue...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8932cc00-2b61-498a...@j8g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Make it into tablets and let doctors prescribe it, if it is so good. That
would keep it out of people's lungs.
It could be better than morphine, and hospitals can prescribe that.
WorkHard
No need for any of that. Just let people decide how they want it
for themselves. They can grow their own, or buy it, use
atomisers, smoke it in a joint, or pipe, or eat it in some
cookies, or whatever.
Why the need for an army of over-obsessive parasitic bureaucrats?
Geopelia
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
No alcohol. I don't like the effects.
But yes, I do drink large amounts of tea, "The cup that cheers, but not
inebriates".
And occasional coffee.
But caffeine is a different type of "drug". Tea and coffee are good 'pick me
up' drinks, and don't make people sleepy and stupid.
Geopelia
Weihana.
It's because we do have regard for human welfare that some of us would like
to see the bigger drug dealers killed.
I've been accused of a few things here but 'moral righteousness' is a new
one!
WD
Yet society arbitrarily exempts the biggest drug dealers in society:
the alcohol and tobacco industry.
But in any case your regard for human welfare is misplaced. There is
no rational argument which supports prohibition for the purpose of
promoting human welfare. The facts are at odds with the fantasy. The
loss of 28000 lives should be a wake up call for anyone suffering the
delusion that the war on drugs promotes human welfare. That it
doesn't wake many people up only speaks to their callous
rationalization of vast numbers of people being deserving of death.
Weihana.
Gordon
>
> One particular fact stood out to me today. 28,000 people have died in
> Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
> That's like having nine September 11's.
Indeed the number of people killed 911 is so small one wonders why it was/is
so much up there in people minds of a mind blowing event.
More Kiwis have died by their own hand since 911 than in 911. More U S of
A solders died in Iraq than 911.
Finally, history shows that prohibition does not work. People use drugs,
making laws will not stop all, get over it
WD
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <5d4d42e4-6557-45b7-80c7-1ca2f5162...@35g2000prt.googlegroups.com>, WD
Though it probably is harmful to some extent. I've heard of some
studies saying it's way more harmful than tobacco and other people
countering that cannabis smokers generally don't smoke as much as
tabacco smokers. I don't really know how harmful it is but one thing
is for sure. Whatever effect it has on people's health, with the lack
of regulation and tax collection on the marijuana trade, users are not
contributing anything to cover the health care costs that may be
associated with usage. They would if it were regulated and taxed.
Weihana.
WD
> "Kuee" <kuee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
A synthetic form of the drug has been manufactured. Patients report
that it's not the same. Some even report adverse effects due to the
inability to accurately control dosage. THC consumed to excess can
cause anxiety in people which is not pleasant. This can be avoided by
smoking it where the effect is almost instantaneous and the user can
stop consuming at the point where their body has had enough.
Weihana.
WorkHard
Why?
What if it was legal and the Government was the biggest dealer?
Would you like to see them killed?
WorkHard
The sugar industry is the worst, surely?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> But caffeine is a different type of "drug". Tea and coffee are good 'pick
> me up' drinks, and don't make people sleepy and stupid.
Some research has shown that caffeine addicts who suffer withdrawal do
indeed become “sleepy and stupid”.
A drug is a drug.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Make it into tablets and let doctors prescribe it, if it is so good.
Doesn’t seem to work with food additives. Why should it work with this?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> It's because we do have regard for human welfare that some of us would
> like to see the bigger drug dealers killed.
All you’re doing is escalating the arms race. The brutal and vicious drug
dealers have taken over because the less brutal and vicious ones were more
easily killed.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<85c4194b-5371-40b8...@42g2000prt.googlegroups.com>, WD
wrote:
> I've heard of some studies saying it's way more harmful than tobacco and
> other people countering that cannabis smokers generally don't smoke as
> much as tabacco smokers.
That’s probably the key thing. Tobacco smokers smoke a lot because it’s
hideously addictive—there are few things in the world worse than that.
Marijuana doesn’t have that effect on you.
Cosmik de Bris
Some law is required, of that I have no doubt, but to think that laws
influence behaviour to any great extent is very naiive. Most people
operate on a mixture of conscience and morality, neither of these can be
mandated. Those that do not operate on these are not likely to be
worried about any law.
Rich...@hotmail.com
Especially if they cut the electricity link across Cook Strait!
I suspect the South Island would survive better than teh North Island,
but neither would be as well off.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<bh2tb6dtkv07tamat...@4ax.com>, Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:42:03 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>>In message <4cbe32db$1...@news.xnet.co.nz>, Peter K wrote:
>>
>>> I say the South Island should become an independent state!
>>
>>Then it can fund its own development out of its own tax base, instead of
>>relying on North Island taxpayers. That would go down really well, I
>>imagine...
>
> Especially if they cut the electricity link across Cook Strait!
The electricity has flowed both ways across that link. Guess which side is
better able to pay...
Kuee
> On Oct 20, 1:12 pm, Kuee <kuee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Oct, 10:15, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > "WD" <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1afeca93-601f-4515...@v20g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Oct 20, 12:08 am, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > > "Richard McGrath" <richard.graham.mcgr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:222d5f7e-8770-4f74...@b9g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Oct 19, 8:56 pm, WD <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://yeson19.com/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us......
>
> > > > > It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
> > > > > favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
> > > > > the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
> > > > > prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>
> > > > > If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
> > > > > it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
> > > > > and elsewhere.
>
> > > > > Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
> > > > > all that bad compared to the moralizing morons who think they are
> > > > > saving their kids by supporting prohibition.
>
> > > > > Weihana.
>
> > > > Yes, the senseless slaughter you describe could have been largely
> > > > avoided if governments stopped trying to determine what people can and
> > > > can't put into their own bodies.
>
> > > > ------------
>
> > > > Or if people had a bit of common sense and made the right decision.
> > > > Tobacco is bad enough for the lungs, without addling their brains as well.
>
> > > So the loss of 28000 lives is worth trying to save people from making
> > > unhealthy decisions? I would've thought death was the epitome of bad
> > > health.
>
> > > The world would be great if everyone made all the "right" choices, but
> > > policy should be based on reality not some Victorian fantasy of what
> > > life should be. Certainly no one deserves to be in jail stripped of
> > > their freedom and dignity because there is concern over their health.
>
> > > Weihana.
>
> > > If people are smoking the stuff that's one thing, if they are selling it to
> > > others, especially to children, it is quite another.
> > > Let's hope all the 28000 were drug dealers. But I suspect some were just
> > > collateral damage.
>
> > still be illegal, but 1 ounce per person? God a pack of 10
> > paracetamol tablets can do much more damage if not used as prescribed.
>
> Why large amounts? Why should it be illegal at all? It would seem to
> me that limiting it to an ounce undermines the state's ability to
> collect tax revenue from the sale of marijuana because it encourages
> personal growing rather than commercial enterprises. Though on the
> other hand, large producers would be easy targets for federal agents.
>
> Ultimately drug law reform shouldn't be based on an ability to collect
> tax revenue (even if its an effective marketing strategy for the
> because it's the moral thing to do and that too many people are
> stripped of their freedom unnecessarily and too many people are harmed
> as a result of prohibition.
>
> Weihana.
In the USA where it is used for medicinal reason, the person has to
have a card with photo on it, and a prescription is required, then
there are businesses who provide clean dope, and offer a wide range
for people to find the best one for nausea, or pain or chronic
insomnia etc etc. It is controlled, I am surprised they do not
legalize it for tax purposes, lot of money to be made off a lot of
people. I liked the reference on earlier post that alcohol creates far
more problems like violence, drunk driving, murder etc, I would never
drive on dope given experiences of my sordid background, a person
stoned is less likely to harm people than those taking P, and alcohol
abuse has higher stats for both violence and DUI's gone tragically
wrong.
Kuee
> On Oct 20, 10:02 am, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Richard McGrath wrote:
> > > On Oct 19, 8:56 pm, WD <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >http://yeson19.com/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us......
>
> > >> It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
> > >> favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
> > >> the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
> > >> prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>
> > >> If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
> > >> it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
> > >> and elsewhere.
>
> > >> One particular fact stood out to me today. 28,000 people have died in
> > >> Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
> > >> That's like having nine September 11's. Osama suddenly doesn't seem
> > >> all that bad compared to the moralizing morons who think they are
> > >> saving their kids by supporting prohibition.
>
> > >> Weihana.
>
> > > Yes, the senseless slaughter you describe could have been largely
> > > avoided if governments stopped trying to determine what people can and
> > > can't put into their own bodies.
>
> > be a huge cost to the mental health service as they are pushed
> > into mental aberration by general use of pot.
>
> > Sure I 100% agree that pot should be legal, but like Alcohol
> > we don't let those it will obviously harm buy alcohol. A
> > lot of very intelligent people are alive without pot, and
> > a lot of dull people remain dull without pot. Now sure
> > help the dull people who need pot to dream more liberally,
> > but don't harm the flake genius of the existing population.
>
> > There were good reasons to ban pot.
>
> You have not provided any good reasons to ban pot. There is no
> evidence that legalizing pot will be a "huge cost" to the mental
> health service. Where pot has been legalized there has not been a
> huge blowout in mental health costs. In places like California where
> pot has a quasi legal status life goes on as normal. It goes on as
> normal because usage is not determined by legal status. If heroin
> were legalized people aren't going to suddenly think "gee I want to
> take heroin".
>
> Not sure what you mean by not selling alcohol to people it will harm,
> though I would agree it should be restricted to children. But that is
> an argument *for* legalization since with legalization comes the
> ability to regulate the trade. A drug dealer doesn't ask for ID,
> legal retailers do. Pot is much easier to obtain for children than
> alcohol is.
>
> Weihana.
When I was a teen, I was the only one who could get served alcohol in
most pubs and stores, never asked me for ID, we did stoopid things
when pissed, including all piling into car to go to hamilton for a
hamburger, drive totally off his face, there but for the grace of God,
and yes I am ashamed that I risked the lives of innocent people just
for that sort of stoopidity
Kuee
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <i9ju6s$sj...@news.eternal-september.org>, Geopelia wrote:
>
> > Or if people had a bit of common sense and made the right decision.
> > Tobacco is bad enough for the lungs, without addling their brains as well.
>
> drugs.
And out of curiosity are you overweight? Overweight people often end
up in hospital for a plethora of conditons created by excess weight
and it costs hundreds a day to care for one patient, I have lost 60kg
from my heaviest and I still need to lose 35kg to be at the right
weight for my height, but they dont make food illegal or even hard to
get.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<dc297333-4134-46bb...@37g2000prx.googlegroups.com>, Kuee
wrote:
> ... we did stoopid things when pissed, including all piling into car to go
> to hamilton for a hamburger ...
Did you not value your own lives!?
Geopelia
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:i9lve2$vg4$3...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Even when they are caught and convicted the government hasn't got the guts
to hang them.
We're a soft hearted lot these days.
Geopelia
------------------------
I'm not obese, but certainly not a skinny model! If I put on a pound or two,
I just eat a bit less.
Anyway, some fat is necessary to produce oestrogen, my doctor says.
Geopelia
"Allistar" <b...@c.com> wrote in message
news:0P-dnXvuEaSRlCPR...@giganews.com...
> WD wrote:
>
>>
>> http://yeson19.com/
>>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legalization_justice
>>
>> It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
>> favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
>> the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
>> prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>>
>> If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
>> it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
>> and elsewhere.
>
> want
> all laws to be reviewed and compared against what is allowed for in the
> constitution. They want any laws that the constitution doesn't allow for
> to
> be repealed. I think that's an excellent start. Having read the relevant
> part of the constitution, I think more needs to be done though - that
> document itself allows for too many liberties to be removed.
>
>> One particular fact stood out to me today. 28,000 people have died in
>> Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
>> That's like having nine September 11's. Osama suddenly doesn't seem
>> all that bad compared to the moralizing morons who think they are
>> saving their kids by supporting prohibition.
>>
>>
>> Weihana.
>
They could have another Tea Party, couldn't they?
Dress up as Indians and throw all the marijuana into the sea!
Perhaps they will, if the government decides to tax the wretched stuff.
Geopelia
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:i9lbna$kh0$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> On 19/10/2010 8:56 p.m., WD wrote:
>>
>> http://yeson19.com/
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legalization_justice
>>
>> It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
>> favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
>> the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
>> prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>>
>> If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
>> it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
>> and elsewhere.
>>
>> Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
>> That's like having nine September 11's. Osama suddenly doesn't seem
>> all that bad compared to the moralizing morons who think they are
>> saving their kids by supporting prohibition.
>>
>>
>> Weihana.
>
> why not have one law for the North Island and one for the South and see
> which works best? When I advocated the same principle for firearms
> law some people, notably Cliffie, went berserk!!!!!!
>
> R
Years ago England and Wales had different alcohol laws.
On Sundays the English went to Wales for the scenery and the Welsh went to
England for the beer!
(Unless they were Chapel, of course)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Probably because it didn’t work.
They used to hang pickpockets back in Victorian times; did that put a stop
to pickpocketing? Don’t think so.
Brian Dooley
All Welsh towns, even down to small villages, had a British
Legion or a Royal Artillery Association - sometimes both, which
were open on Sundays.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Geopelia
"Cosmik de Bris" <cosmik...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:ZQvvo.7825$4X5...@newsfe14.iad...
"All things are lawful unto me but all things are not expedient" is a very
good slogan to keep in mind.
But perhaps not quite as St Paul meant it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> "All things are lawful unto me but all things are not expedient" is a very
> good slogan to keep in mind.
> But perhaps not quite as St Paul meant it.
Ah, the man who single-handedly invented Christianity...
Geopelia
"Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:rf2vb6dsg30n3puha...@4ax.com...
Were the public allowed in to drink?
Geopelia
"Cosmik de Bris" <cosmik...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:ZQvvo.7825$4X5...@newsfe14.iad...
"All things are lawful unto me but all things are not expedient" is a very
Geopelia
"Cosmik de Bris" <cosmik...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:ZQvvo.7825$4X5...@newsfe14.iad...
"All things are lawful unto me but all things are not expedient" is a very
WorkHard
> "All things are lawful unto me but all things are not
> expedient" is a
> very good slogan to keep in mind.
> But perhaps not quite as St Paul meant it.
Wow. You posted that 3 times! I wonder why, when once would have
done.
Brian Dooley
On the other hand not all the guilty suffered the extreme
punishment under the 'Bloody Code', especially after
'transportation' became popular - otherwise where would we have
got the Australians from. Alternatives were branding, the stocks
and 'volunteering' for the Army or Navy. Before QV the King had
to sign each death certificate and for a long time one just
refused and insisted on one of the alteratives.
Brian Dooley
You would certainly have to have some vaguely acceptable reason
eg I was one of a group taking the Sunday off in the middle of a
TA firing camp at Sennybridge. When we got there the place was
packed with locals and I have no idea who they were because they
were all speaking Welsh.
WD
Usually something wrong with the newsreader. Google groups does that
sometimes. You think it hasn't sent so you send it again and then it
shows up three times.
Weihana.
Geopelia
The Home Secretary used to have to sign in Britain when I was there. I don't
think any objected.
And the queues for the Old Bailey went round the block if there was a good
murder on.
Geopelia
We used to join in with all the Welsh singing. It was great when the local
team had just won a Rugby match.
But how many of us realised that "Calon Lan" is a prayer for a pure heart?
Geopelia
"Geopelia" <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:i9oc74$7n2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
But I got 16 copies of a friend's email!
Geopelia
"WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote in message
news:CuGdnQkmwuolJiLR...@giganews.com...
WD
> On , , Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:52:09 +1300, Re: California Prop 19 - Legalize Pot,
>
>
>
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >In message <i9mge7$sk...@news.eternal-september.org>, Geopelia wrote:
>
> >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> >>news:i9lve2$vg4$3...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>
> >>>> It's because we do have regard for human welfare that some of us would
> >>>> like to see the bigger drug dealers killed.
>
> >>> All you're doing is escalating the arms race. The brutal and vicious drug
> >>> dealers have taken over because the less brutal and vicious ones were
> >>> more easily killed.
>
> >> Even when they are caught and convicted the government hasn't got the guts
> >> to hang them.
>
> >Probably because it didn’t work.
>
>
> >They used to hang pickpockets back in Victorian times; did that put a stop
> >to pickpocketing? Don’t think so.
>
> The Islamic practice of cutting a thief hand off served two purposes:
> 1. It prevented the criminal from doing the same thing again.
> 2. It showed others who the thief was. They could keep an eye on them and deter
> them from thinking of doing it again.
It also encourages people not to report offending because a normal
person with a conscience doesn't believe it justified to hack
someone's arm off over stolen bread.
Weihana.
Geopelia
"Fr Scooter" <5c��7...@goatmile.dpn> wrote in message
news:leg2c69bl1o13giuc...@4ax.com...
> On , , Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Re: California Prop 19 -
> Legalize
> It served as a reminder for other people what happened if you broke the
> law.
> The law must be seen to be done.
> The practice of hanging people behind closed doors led to the elimination
> of
> judicial hanging. More the pity. People could see justice being done. They
> kept
> their faith in justice.
People lucky enough to get into a murder trial could watch the Judge put on
the black cap and pronounce sentence, and watch the guilty person. The rest
of us just made jokes about it, and followed the trial in the papers.
But it did remind people not to commit murders.
And I think in those days there was more care taken to ensure an innocent
person didn't get convicted, in Britain anyway.
(No, I never saw a murder trial or tried to see one.)
WD
> On , , Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Re: California Prop 19 - Legalize
How many is many? And how many thieves were prosecuted as compared to
them getting away?
> It served as a reminder for other people what happened if you broke the law.
> The law must be seen to be done.
> The practice of hanging people behind closed doors led to the elimination of
> judicial hanging. More the pity. People could see justice being done. They kept
> their faith in justice.
Above all the law must be just. You do not seem to have any clue what
justice is. Your views on justice are medieval and belong in the dark
ages (or Saudi Arabia).
Weihana.
Geopelia
"WD" <tuar...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:eb45d862-262e-47dc...@m35g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Weihana.
"Justice is the interest of the stronger" as Thrasymachus says in the
Republic (Plato).
He is probably right, even 25 centuries later.
(And as the schoolboy said about Plato,"the just man minds his own
business")
Or perhaps justice is whatever the government decides it is, these days.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> What on earth is this computer doing? Three copies of that.
> But I got 16 copies of a friend's email!
You’re running Windows XP, aren’t you?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> "Justice is the interest of the stronger" as Thrasymachus says in the
> Republic (Plato).
The “stronger” don’t need “justice”, they can take care of themselves. It’s
the weaker ones who need it, to protect themselves against the unbridled
actions of the stronger.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> But it did remind people not to commit murders.
I guess a few still forgot.
> And I think in those days there was more care taken to ensure an innocent
> person didn't get convicted, in Britain anyway.
Or there was nobody like Pat Booth or Joe Karam in those days...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> And the queues for the Old Bailey went round the block if there was a good
> murder on.
What was a “good” murder? Long, slow, painful deaths maybe? Kids left
orphaned and traumatized? (Oh sorry, there was no “traumatized” in those
days.)
Supergoofy
http://verydemotivational.com/2010/10/19/demotivational-posters-product-placement/
:o)
Rachel
Brian Dooley
So am I - so what?
WD
> On , , Fri, 22 Oct 2010 05:02:46 -0700 (PDT), Re: California Prop 19 - Legalize
> Lets just go on record that you have told me something and I didn't agree with
> you and leave it at that.
OK, fair enough.
Weihana.
Geopelia
"Fr Scooter" <5c��7...@goatmile.dpn> wrote in message
news:dfc4c6duj7tsk424j...@4ax.com...
> On , , Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:48:55 +1300, Re: California Prop 19 - Legalize
> Pot,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>>
>>> And the queues for the Old Bailey went round the block if there was a
>>> good
>>> murder on.
>>
>>What was a "good" murder?
>
Anything the papers had talked up, especially if the accused was female.
Remember Ruth Ellis? Today she would probably get away with manslaughter on
mental grounds, provocation or something.
If you want a long account of the trial and execution see
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/ruth.html
Some good legal arguments there, but I'm no lawyer. I remember the case well
though.
But with TV today, who wants to queue in the street for hours?
Of course there is nothing "good" about murders (though it depends who the
victim is, doesn't it?) but some people thought it was good entertainment to
attend the trials.
Kuee
> On Oct 20, 1:12 pm, Kuee <kuee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Oct, 10:15, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > "WD" <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1afeca93-601f-4515...@v20g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Oct 20, 12:08 am, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > > "Richard McGrath" <richard.graham.mcgr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:222d5f7e-8770-4f74...@b9g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Oct 19, 8:56 pm, WD <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://yeson19.com/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us......
>
> > > > > It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
> > > > > favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
> > > > > the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
> > > > > prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>
> > > > > If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
> > > > > it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
> > > > > and elsewhere.
>
> > > > > Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
> > > > > all that bad compared to the moralizing morons who think they are
> > > > > saving their kids by supporting prohibition.
>
> > > > > Weihana.
>
> > > > avoided if governments stopped trying to determine what people can and
> > > > can't put into their own bodies.
>
> > > > ------------
>
> > > > Or if people had a bit of common sense and made the right decision.
> > > > Tobacco is bad enough for the lungs, without addling their brains as well.
>
> > > So the loss of 28000 lives is worth trying to save people from making
> > > unhealthy decisions? I would've thought death was the epitome of bad
> > > health.
>
> > > The world would be great if everyone made all the "right" choices, but
> > > policy should be based on reality not some Victorian fantasy of what
> > > life should be. Certainly no one deserves to be in jail stripped of
> > > their freedom and dignity because there is concern over their health.
>
> > > Weihana.
>
> > > If people are smoking the stuff that's one thing, if they are selling it to
> > > others, especially to children, it is quite another.
> > > Let's hope all the 28000 were drug dealers. But I suspect some were just
> > > collateral damage.
>
> > I agree, dealing the stuff to kids, or even in large amounts should
> > still be illegal, but 1 ounce per person? God a pack of 10
> > paracetamol tablets can do much more damage if not used as prescribed.
>
> Why large amounts? Why should it be illegal at all? It would seem to
> me that limiting it to an ounce undermines the state's ability to
> collect tax revenue from the sale of marijuana because it encourages
> personal growing rather than commercial enterprises. Though on the
> other hand, large producers would be easy targets for federal agents.
>
> Ultimately drug law reform shouldn't be based on an ability to collect
> tax revenue (even if its an effective marketing strategy for the
> proposition). People should realize that reform is a good idea
> because it's the moral thing to do and that too many people are
> stripped of their freedom unnecessarily and too many people are harmed
> as a result of prohibition.
>
> Weihana.
I meant something a little different with that comment, I meant if
they insist on making it illegal, then large amounts (as in paddocks
full for black market) should be kept illegal, i dont think it should
be illegal full stop, but if they insis on illegal but would they
consider decriminalising, they would need to make a boundary, so a
paddock full could be an example of the same. Like I sadi, I think it
should be as legal as alcohol or ciggies, people can make up their own
minds about what to put into their bodies, they dont need lawmakers
who can buy themselves out of petty pot raids (dont tell me you really
think all cops, lawers, judges and other high society employment do
not smoke pot????)
Kuee
> On Oct 20, 10:02 am, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Richard McGrath wrote:
> > > On Oct 19, 8:56 pm, WD <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >http://yeson19.com/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us......
>
> > >> It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
> > >> favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
> > >> the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by the
> > >> prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>
> > >> If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I think
> > >> it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like New Zealand
> > >> and elsewhere.
>
> > >> One particular fact stood out to me today. 28,000 people have died in
> > >> Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on drugs.
> > >> That's like having nine September 11's. Osama suddenly doesn't seem
> > >> all that bad compared to the moralizing morons who think they are
> > >> saving their kids by supporting prohibition.
>
> > >> Weihana.
>
> > > Yes, the senseless slaughter you describe could have been largely
> > > avoided if governments stopped trying to determine what people can and
> > > can't put into their own bodies.
>
> > be a huge cost to the mental health service as they are pushed
> > into mental aberration by general use of pot.
>
> > Sure I 100% agree that pot should be legal, but like Alcohol
> > we don't let those it will obviously harm buy alcohol. A
> > lot of very intelligent people are alive without pot, and
> > a lot of dull people remain dull without pot. Now sure
> > help the dull people who need pot to dream more liberally,
> > but don't harm the flake genius of the existing population.
>
> > There were good reasons to ban pot.
>
> You have not provided any good reasons to ban pot. There is no
> evidence that legalizing pot will be a "huge cost" to the mental
> health service. Where pot has been legalized there has not been a
> huge blowout in mental health costs. In places like California where
> pot has a quasi legal status life goes on as normal. It goes on as
> normal because usage is not determined by legal status. If heroin
> were legalized people aren't going to suddenly think "gee I want to
> take heroin".
>
> Not sure what you mean by not selling alcohol to people it will harm,
> though I would agree it should be restricted to children. But that is
> an argument *for* legalization since with legalization comes the
> ability to regulate the trade. A drug dealer doesn't ask for ID,
> legal retailers do. Pot is much easier to obtain for children than
> alcohol is.
>
> Weihana.
and adults will give kids dope like they give them alcohol, I really
cannot see why there is such a gap between the effects (and side
effects) of tobacco, alcohol, THC, it all effects different parts of
the body in different ways, pro choice. There is no direct proof that
dope is physically addictive like nicotine and alcohol, even those
with the most adverse addiction issues can stop and start pot, when
they cannot do the same with booze, nicotine or the heavier side like
heroin, cannabis is only psychologically addictive, like a lot of
sedation freely given out in hospitals and community chemists
Kuee
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <i9ju6s$sj...@news.eternal-september.org>, Geopelia wrote:
>
> > Or if people had a bit of common sense and made the right decision.
> > Tobacco is bad enough for the lungs, without addling their brains as well.
>
> drugs.
and they all have some form of effect on the CNS, we all have one,
dont be shy :)
Geopelia
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:i9t44c$458$6...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Yes. Most of the time it behaves.
Geopelia
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
He was saying what justice is, not who needs it. The stronger make the
justice to help themselves, I think he means.
And he's probably right, but can you really call the result justice?
Geopelia
> Geopelia wrote:
>> "Kuee" <kue...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:8932cc00-2b61-498a...@j8g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 20 Oct, 00:08, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> "Richard McGrath" <richard.graham.mcgr...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> news:222d5f7e-8770-4f74...@b9g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://yeson19.com/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us......
>>>>
>>>>> It appears some on the right (of the libertarian variety) are in
>>>>> favour of reforming drug laws. Hopefully if it passes this will be
>>>>> the beginning of a proper debate where the fallacies promoted by
>>>>> the prohibitionists can be given critical examination.
>>>>
>>>>> If a real movement towards liberalization occurred in the US I
>>>>> think it would go a long way to furthering debate in places like
>>>>> New Zealand and elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>> One particular fact stood out to me today. 28,000 people have died
>>>>> in Mexico over the last 4 or so years as a result of the war on
>>>>> drugs. That's like having nine September 11's. Osama suddenly
>>>>> doesn't seem all that bad compared to the moralizing morons who
>>>>> think they are saving their kids by supporting prohibition.
>>>>
>>>>> Weihana.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the senseless slaughter you describe could have been largely
>>>> avoided if governments stopped trying to determine what people can
>>>> and can't put into their own bodies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or if people had a bit of common sense and made the right decision.
>>>> Tobacco is bad enough for the lungs, without addling their brains as
>>>> well.
>>>
>>> to sleep and never wake up, then discovered a very small amount of
>>> marijuana can help diminish that pain significantly for several
>>> hours. Do you know the pain of glaucoma and the facts that prove
>>> marijuana can assist in this common pain also, have you ever had
>>> chemotherapy with all the pain and nausea associated with it, only
>>> to know that a small amount of marijuana can give you respite, even
>>> if only for a few hours? I still believe that at the very least NZ
>>> should decriminalize Mary Jane, would also save a whole heap of
>>> money, not only in the field of pharmaceuticals, but also in police
>>> time, stalking and arresting petty growers, when the big buggers get
>>> away with paddocks full of it. If NZ wont decriminalize it, at least
>>> allow for medicinal purposes, this can be monitored and regulated
>>> like any other medication, and even the "professionals" are seeing
>>> the amazing benefits of marijuana, if a person chooses to allow this
>>> drug into their system, as they choose to put one of the worlds most
>>> lethal drugs in their mouths, (Paracetamol) then they have the
>>> responsibility to take care of any secondary effects MJ may produce,
>>> ie psychosis (and you do not have to be dangerous to be psychotic)
>>> memory loss, lung cancer and many others problems associated with
>>> putting anything other then oxygen into their own lungs.
>>>
>>> I wish NZ would have more Prop19 type of amendments, they give the
>>> people of the country the chance to speak out, where as in NZ, they
>>> (being those in parliament) get to speak on behalf of how many
>>> million people in NZ, with minimal research or experience, at least
>>> when the Americans put forward a prop, Americans get to speak,
>>> unlike our country when we entrust a very small band of people to
>>> speak for us on anything and everything. I do not have any great
>>> desire to move to America, but at least they let people have their
>>> say.
>>
>> Make it into tablets and let doctors prescribe it, if it is so good.
>> That would keep it out of people's lungs.
>> It could be better than morphine, and hospitals can prescribe that.
>
> No need for any of that. Just let people decide how they want it for
> themselves. They can grow their own, or buy it, use atomisers, smoke it in
> a joint, or pipe, or eat it in some cookies, or whatever.
>
> Why the need for an army of over-obsessive parasitic bureaucrats?
>
To standardise the strength and the proper dosage.
And if possible, to remove the dopey effect on the brain amd just leave the
pain killing properties.
If morphine can be used like that, why not marijuana?
Kuee
> "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote in message
>
> news:DcidnXxVXsIy9iPR...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Geopelia wrote:
for some people morphine provides them with similar effects to some
cannabis smokers, hard to draw a parralell. I take a medication
1300mg, with no problems, yet I know some people who take a paltry
12.5mg (paltry by comparison not by judgement) and are literally
stoned for hours. Any drugs involving the CNS can create effects or
side effects similar to those of certain illegal drugs.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:i9t47a$458$7...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>> In message <i9sua4$nrv$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Geopelia wrote:
>>
>>> "Justice is the interest of the stronger" as Thrasymachus says in the
>>> Republic (Plato).
>>
>> The "stronger" don't need "justice", they can take care of themselves.
>> It's the weaker ones who need it, to protect themselves against the
>> unbridled actions of the stronger.
>
> He was saying what justice is, not who needs it.
That’s not what justice is.
> The stronger make the justice to help themselves, I think he means.
But they don’t need to, as I pointed out.
> And he's probably right, but can you really call the result justice?
That’s like saying Flat-Earthers are probably right, but can you call the
result the Earth?
WD
> On , , Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:53:57 +1300, Re: California Prop 19 - Legalize Pot,
>
> "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >To standardise the strength and the proper dosage.
> > And if possible, to remove the dopey effect on the brain amd just leave the
> >pain killing properties.
> >If morphine can be used like that, why not marijuana?
>
> on your mind and reasoning abilities. You do reach a point where the mushy
> mindedness recedes and the major effect is the painkilling one. As the tolerance
> to it increases it takes larger and larger quantities to kill the pain.
> Marijuana is a different type of drug. It is easy to extract the pain killing
> effects from the marijuana but the overwhelming percentage of people who want
> use of it made legal, is to provide a back door entry to the use and
> availability of it. They merely want the "stoned" effect, they don't care about
> the other effects.
People who want marijuana legalized typically want it because they
believe the government has no business prohibiting people from putting
a recreational drug into their own bodies while harming no one else.
It is not true that these people "want the stoned effect" since most
of them do not use the drug. Most people in society are not marijuana
users so when up to half of the electorate are seeking reform it is
clear that such reform is motivated by more than a desire to use. Most
reform advocates seek no effect from the drug, what they seek are
sensible laws.
As for medicinal marijuana, there are many patients who claim that
synthetic alternatives to marijuana are either not as effective or do
not provide the same effect. Thus your assertion that "it is easy to
extract the pain killing effects from marijuana" would appear to be at
odds with those who are actually suffering and who are thereby in a
position to provide an informed opinion.
There's no question marijuana has a "dopey effect". We all have a
common experience of what it is like to either be stoned or be around
someone who is stoned. Yet it is hard to see why this is considered
such an evil by people such as Geopelia, or yourself Scooter. Alcohol
similarly has a dopey effect just a different kind of dopey effect.
While a stoned person might not say anything at all to you as he
examines the wallpaper, a drunk person will tell you the same thing
about 10 times while he spills his drink on you. It makes no sense
that we demonize one form of inebriation while we celebrate the
other. We go so far as to lock people up because they are inebriated
in a fashion which displeases, despite harming no one else.
What reform advocates want is for the law to reflect that basic
concept that nearly every decent person believes in: "live and let
live". What medicinal marijuana does is highlight the callous
disregard prohibitionists have for human suffering as they raid the
homes of cancer patients who use marijuana to ease their pain as the
cancer slowly, and inevitably, takes their life. Drug enforcement
officers are a modern day Gestapo and their harassment of pain
sufferers shows them for what they really are.
Weihana.
Geopelia
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
In the modern world, justice is whatever the government says it is, however
crazy some laws may seem.
So be a law abiding citizen, and leave ethics and morals to the politicians
and judges.
Geopelia
Weihana.
If marijuana really works for cancer patients perhaps there should be some
legal dispensation for them. Could marijuana be given out by the hospitals
as morphine is? That would avoid them having to use drug dealers.
WD
> On , , Mon, 25 Oct 2010 03:55:14 -0700 (PDT), Re: California Prop 19 - Legalize
> that reason I don't smoke the stuff. Mind you in the late 60's when Thai Buddha
> sticks were available that didn't make me throw up. It was mellow and very
> relaxing. It was only with the big crackdowns on foreign sailors bringing it in
> that the supply dried up and New Zealand supply became more available. The
> quality was only a fraction though.
> I have spent long periods of time in my life where I have experienced
> excruciating pain and when the only thing that relieved the pain was Morphine.
> Slow release and Morphine Sulphate tables. As I said the dopey effect passes and
> when taking it every eight hours life returns to normal but minus the pain.
> Driving was no problem, I retained full control of my senses and my driving
> ability was not affected, unlike the times I smoked dope or drank to excess.
> There was a difference between the slow release tablets which were designed to
> last for a longer time, the MS tablets had a slightly different effect and IM
> imjection was different to shooting it into a vein, now that did make me very
> dopey and spohorific. IM was more of a slow mellow effect.
> All of the various methods cause withdrawal effects regardless of what you are
> told, a common myth is that if you are taking MS for pain relief you don't
> become addicted. After longer periods of injecting morphine the withdrawal is
> very sudden and painful, the sensation of ants crawling under your skin, the
> restless legs, the feeling of impending doom and the slow cramping of your bowel
> and the stomach cramps and the sweats and fidgetiness and the vomiting.
> Projectile vomiting through your nose when you stupidly put your hand over your
> mouth to try and control the spewing. Withdrawal was over after two days.
> Withdrawing from the slow release was difference, the effects lasted much longer
> and the restlessness and twitching were prolonged.
>
> >What reform advocates want is for the law to reflect that basic
> >concept that nearly every decent person believes in: "live and let
> >live". What medicinal marijuana does is highlight the callous
> >disregard prohibitionists have for human suffering as they raid the
> >homes of cancer patients who use marijuana to ease their pain as the
> >cancer slowly, and inevitably, takes their life. Drug enforcement
> >officers are a modern day Gestapo and their harassment of pain
> >sufferers shows them for what they really are.
>
I'm not in a position to provide any meaningful estimate. I only go
off the first hand accounts I have seen in various documentaries and
in the media. As a matter of principle I would say if it worked for
just one person then they should be able to use it.
It seems obvious however that many (most?) of the people obtaining
"legal" marijuana in California these days are not obtaining it for
medical purposes but rather for recreational use.
Weihana.
WD
> "WD" <tuari...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> news:f8cea8ab-0fec-42d6...@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
But what makes drug dealers what they are? Why is it that we view
drug dealers as generally scummy people and indeed our perceptions are
usually confirmed by the scummy things they often do? The reason they
are like this is because the system makes it that way. The system is
such that to rise in the drug world you have to be more ruthless and
violent than your competitors. Without a legal framework it is
inevitable that disputes are resolved, not through advertising and
litigation, but through violence and intimidation. With this kind of
system it should be no surprise that your average drug dealer has few
morals and will just as quickly sell crack to a 12 year old as to an
adult.
If a hospital dispenses marijuana, or any drug for that matter, does
this not make them drug dealers themselves? How can one possibly
obtain drugs from someone who isn't a drug dealer? By definition if
you are supplying drugs you must be a drug dealer. But we know that
hospitals are not like the quote-unquote drug dealers. The reason
they are not like them is because they are legally regulated. The
same would be true for dealers who supplied drugs for recreational
use. They would resolve disputes through non-violent and civil means
and they would also abide by government regulations designed to reduce
harm associated with drug abuse. They would be no more evil than the
person who runs your local liquor store.
Weihana.