'Petty offence' here; jail in Singapore
Tinker
after your neck within Singapore, but silent outside Singapore. The
CLOB issue are handled *politely and considerately* with Malaysia,
despite clearcut breaking of rules. In Singapore, you just move a
little bit off line, and you are hit with a ton of brick. What a world
of difference in treatment! Can we be more practical and realistic
please?
I know what law is, and how we should defend it. But we create laws,
and should not be their slaves. Change them if its not right.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Tinker
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
> Change the law so that some people can get stoned as they wished?
Looked at moderately, not to the extreme, it is a harmless event.
What do you say to governments that actually supply drugs to addicts?
How about governments that legalise limited prostitution. Sure you can
understand all these "modern" age since you are living in the PAST.
You know, in the past, they even legalise slavery. So we are neither
here nor there...
Or are you saying these other governments are stupid?
Yep! Singapore has not "grow up!" like the SM liked Singapore to be.
Steve Sundberg
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
>
>Change the law so that some people can get stoned as they wished?
Why not? Getting stoned certainly doesn't seem to have affected their
abilities to lead productive lives, has it?
I wouldn't be surprised if few Singaporeans, outside Parliment and the
judiciary, were even aware that the law had been changed. Doesn't that
say a lot about representative government in Singapore?
_.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,._
It's been Oolong time, my Darjeeling Jasmine, dee...@mm.com
since we've had some Tea together. webm...@straitscafe.com
_.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^ http://www.mm.com/user/deejay/
http://www.wlte.com | WLTE - Lite Rock 103 FM
Affordable Website Design & Maintenance | http://www.eggsco.com
Striding Cloud
Andrew MacLane <drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ysyOMvMD1TShfCEUCMlbpe1mh=R...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:55:23 -0800, Tinker
<jsx123N...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >I know what law is, and how we should defend it. But we create laws,
> >and should not be their slaves. Change them if its not right.
>
>
There's no harm in that.
Excesive drinking makes a person doubly stoned. There are no laws in
Singapore prohibiting someone from drinking excessively so long as he
behaves himself in public and/or do not drive.
So why can't we say the same for cannabis? I mean .. from the posts flying
around the newsgroup it's a conclusion that cannabis is a "harmless drug"
(as quoted by Ken!).
I do see where the law is coming from, but the law makes it kinda black &
white, without giving grounds for gray. Life isn't only black and white. In
fact, life is gray, and green, and torquoise.
Its a pity that these two folks were used as scapegoats to bring the point
across.
Regards,
Striding Cloud
Yap Yok Foo
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
step into a Singapore government office where smoking is not allowed.
The law, as we laymen understand it at the moment, is that the
Singapore authority can nap me and charge me for smoking in a
non-smoking zone.
That, my friend, I and many others find incredulous
If the law is an ass, change it or else you bring ridicule to yourself
The Malaysian News & Discussion Group
=====================================
Read or subscribe to this group at
http://www.eGroups.com/list/beritamalaysia/
To subscribe by e-mail, send to
beritamalays...@egroups.com
To unsubscribe by e-mail, send to
beritamalaysi...@egroups.com
Just The Malaysian News
=======================
Please go to http://www.onelist.com/
Click on Find a list
Type in "bmalaysia" in the search box
Click on bmalaysia
Click on Subscribe to this list
Register
Once registered and subscribed, you will get the daily articles about
Malaysia delivered to your e-mail box
Ken!!!
patients who are nauseous from the AZT and other pills they have to
pop... THC increases their appetite and therefore keeps their energy
level up because they can eat and keep food down... improving the
chances of driving down the HIV viral load...
On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:29:41 +0800, "Striding Cloud"
<cas...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>So why can't we say the same for cannabis? I mean .. from the posts flying
>around the newsgroup it's a conclusion that cannabis is a "harmless drug"
>(as quoted by Ken!).
*************************************
delete SPAMMERSDIE for correspondence
ICQ:42366740
*************************************
Operator
The justifications for using soft drugs is all nonsense. Narcotics are just what they are -
narcotics.
Operator
Andrew MacLane wrote:
>
> It doesn't matter to me if the law has been changed or not because as far as I
> am concerned, drugs are an offense against the law, be it the so-called benign
> ones or not.
>
> /\ndre\/\/ /\/\acLane
Tinker
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
> So, we wait until it becomes a harmful event before we do
> something, huh?
Thats something called "paranoia" which is more harmful than cannibis.
On your line of reasoning, no household should be allowed to keep bread
knife, coz paranoia says humans can go screwy at times, and the little
knife can kill. cars should also be banned becoz it is entirely
possible they do "harm" to innocent bystanders. No end, right?
> Another government, another country. They have the right to do
> whatever they
> wished.
Thats shallow comment. I view it as another governments committed
attempt to solve a social problem, to control it and manage in a
responsible manner. They don't take the easy way out by throwing
social offenders into jails. Thats what we got to learn.
> Somehow, I think you need a grammar checker, or you need better
> English teacher.
Send me a spell checker. Guess I am using a cheep one.
Therion Ware
wrote in soc.culture.malaysia:
>Tinker wrote:
>
>> Thats something called "paranoia" which is more harmful than cannibis.
>
>Is that right?
>Cannabis contains a type of opiate which is in the same class as morphine and
>cocaine.
When you say "class," what do you mean by that? A pharmacological
class, or a legal class?
>The pharmacological action on the central nervous system is devastating
>over a long period of time.
(a) THC is an opiate?
(b) You have a cite for the cns problems caused by cannabis?
>Several studies have also indicated that soft drug users who actually graduated
>to hard drugs ranges from 50% to 65%.
100% of alcoholics drank beer at one time.
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
- attrib: Pauline Reage.
------ <http://www.city-of-dis.co.uk/entry/hell.html>
ICQ: 29168081
---
Inexpensive Video 2 Mpeg conversion? <http://www.video2cd.co.uk>
Tinker
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:39:49 -0800, Tinker
> <jsx123N...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> - snipped -
> cannibis.
> bread
> >knife, coz paranoia says humans can go screwy at times, and the
> little
> >knife can kill. cars should also be banned becoz it is entirely
> >possible they do "harm" to innocent bystanders. No end, right?
> A bread knife or a car _ MAYBE _ dangerous, but they are necessary
> tools which
> some people might use. People make mistakes in using tools and
> they can't be
> fault for it.
> OTOH, is the consumption of cannabis by those who don't need it /
> just to get
> stoned comparable to that of the usage of a bread knife and a car?
Find me one person that has NO vice. Use your term "don't need it" but
still doing it to qualify a vice. The Pope, I understand is just
canonising new saints. Try submitting the name. *Yawn*
druggie
Cannabis has some 400 checmicals in it with the main psychoactive one being THC a
cannabinoid, not to be confused with opiates at all. Johns Hopkins just released a
study on the cognitive effects of chronic long term use and found no statistical
difference between that users and the control group (the difference noted was that
the smokers scored better than the non-smokers although not by enough of a margin to
be significant). The "gateway theory" you spout is also rubbish and is a far better
reason to ban alcohol and tobacco than pot. In fact, some research (done in Holland
where pot smoking is decriminalized) shows that free access to pot REDUCES the
demand for harder drugs. Get your facts straight mate.
Operator wrote:
> Tinker wrote:
>
> > Thats something called "paranoia" which is more harmful than cannibis.
>
> Is that right?
> Cannabis contains a type of opiate which is in the same class as morphine and
> cocaine. The pharmacological action on the central nervous system is devastating
> over a long period of time.
> Several studies have also indicated that soft drug users who actually graduated
> to hard drugs ranges from 50% to 65%.
>
> Operator
ohoh
<jsx123N...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <kskyOJ+0+V2a4u...@4ax.com>, Andrew MacLane
><drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> So, we wait until it becomes a harmful event before we do
>> something, huh?
i'll go a few steps back. why not do a psychological and genetic
profile, for each citizen of s'pore, to see if they are at risk of
becoming a drug addict. then implement programs to "take care" of the
individuals in this "at risk" group.
would this satify the moral majorites in s'pore?
>
>Thats something called "paranoia" which is more harmful than cannibis.
>On your line of reasoning, no household should be allowed to keep bread
>knife, coz paranoia says humans can go screwy at times, and the little
>knife can kill. cars should also be banned becoz it is entirely
>possible they do "harm" to innocent bystanders. No end, right?
don't give them ideas.
Steve Sundberg
wrote:
>I totally agree with you Andrew.
>The justifications for using soft drugs is all nonsense. Narcotics are just what they are -
>narcotics.
But marijuana is not a narcotic. It is neither classified as a
narcotic (at least outside Singapore it isn't) nor does have a
narcotic effect on a person's physiology.
druggie
Rick wrote:
Ya ya, and morphine is also given to cancer patients..........blah blah blah. Where were you when God was giving out brains??? We are talking about drugs abuse here, not the value of it in terms of medical science. A lot of medicines are opiate base, but when taken without or not according to prescription, it's abuse.
--
n,
_/ |_
_/' /
<~ /
/ |
_/ |
_/ `.`.
/' \__ | |
_____/ /__\ \ \
(_____.'\______)\_|_|
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_
/| _ _/ _ _ _ / _/ )
>>>===== /_| /_ / / / ) / ) / ) / / =======>
/ | _/ / / (_/ (_/_/ (_/ / /=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lair at http://home.pacific.net.sg/~rickgoh/index.html
PGP public key at ttp://home.pacific.net.sg/~rickgoh/rick.pgp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
druggie
science base with respect to the complex interaction of people to what they
ingest is far from well formed. We don't know with certainty seemingly obvious
things like the lethal dose of nasi lemak (which is lower than one thinks). Each
individuals body chemistry is different and their reactions to ingestions are
different. A bee sting which kills one man will hardly bother another. For some
people, smoking pot is rapturous and for others it is unpleasant. Some start
eating durians and can never stop while others cannot even go close. Thus is all
to say that with the science base so thin, the government has little legs to
stand on in legislating (which differs from regulating) the use or misuse of any
substance which is ingested. Before you flame me about poison or explosives,
remember that the crime will be committed upon another person in these cases and
thus clearly subject to current existing property/injury law. The governments in
the west (mainly the US) have made a number of arbitrary decisions regarding
legal and illegal highs and Singapore happens to go along with those decisions
and then some. However, like in the US, Singapore is finding that the more
educated the populace the less able the government is to lie to them about
morality legislation in health care clothing. The case in question will have
profound consequences. As an odd international case it will be widely read in
many circles and in the process the absurdity of the punishment will shine
through. This will eventually lead to a change in policy.
COE wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I can see the original subject getting a bit confused here. If it is purely
> on narcotics or addiction, there is the alt.politics.drugs or
> http://www.ukcia.org/ for some indepth analysis. Lets instead look at the
> current Singapore Law, which has demolished (unfairly?) two promising youths'
> future this week, and at least a dozen more each week.
>
> This case is about a couple who consumed cannabis 3 weeks ago in another
> country and caught in Singapore and prosecuted (amazing!) based on residues.
> To be relevant, two key issues should be addressed:
>
> 1) Can one do something entirely legal in a foreign country, but still be
> prosecuted here based on Singapore law - regardless whether one is a tourist
> or citizen. This is what our short-sighted law makers didn't examine in
> depth when pass them laws like signing checks and wimping how hard it is to
> change them later!
>
> 2) If the fear is that drugs, eg. cannabis, can cause hallucinations that
> can endanger others, will not drugs that cause drowsiness similarly endanger
> lives and come under offence?
>
> I remember a little debate with my company doctor some 3 years ago. It went
> like this. I was down with a bad flu and went to the clinic for treatment.
> After the usual checks, and while the doc is scribbling his prescription, he
> asked me one simple question - Do you drive? I said yes, and he went on to
> say that I should not take the medicine since it will cause drowsiness and
> could cause accidents. But I told him that even without taking his medicine,
> I am ALREADY feeling drowsy from the flu. He gave a shrug and complete his
> prescription.
>
> My question here - Is the doc committing an offence by knowingly allowing me
> to "drive" (or even operate machinery) and sending me back to work, knowing
> my drowsy condition, (he refused to prescribe medical leave, even though he
> did admit my flu is real bad) with possibility of endangering lives should my
> job involve operating machinery. Would the doc be prosecuted in court?
>
> There is a parallel in many ways to topic of this thread.
>
> In article <80tlhp$ikl$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg>,
> "Striding Cloud" <cas...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> >
> > Andrew MacLane <drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8ysyOMvMD1TShfCEUCMlbpe1mh=R...@4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:55:23 -0800, Tinker
> > <jsx123N...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > - snipped -
> > > >I know what law is, and how we should defend it. But we create laws,
> > > >and should not be their slaves. Change them if its not right.
> > >
> > > Change the law so that some people can get stoned as they wished?
> > >
> > Oooh :)
> > There's no harm in that.
> >
> > Excesive drinking makes a person doubly stoned. There are no laws in
> > Singapore prohibiting someone from drinking excessively so long as he
> > behaves himself in public and/or do not drive.
> >
> > So why can't we say the same for cannabis? I mean .. from the posts flying
> > around the newsgroup it's a conclusion that cannabis is a "harmless drug"
> > (as quoted by Ken!).
> >
> > I do see where the law is coming from, but the law makes it kinda black &
> > white, without giving grounds for gray. Life isn't only black and white. In
> > fact, life is gray, and green, and torquoise.
> >
> > Its a pity that these two folks were used as scapegoats to bring the point
> > across.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Striding Cloud
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Ken!!!
On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:57:54 +0800, Operator <co...@mindef.gov.uk>
wrote:
>The justifications for using soft drugs is all nonsense. Narcotics are just what they are -
>narcotics.
*************************************
Operator
> Thats something called "paranoia" which is more harmful than cannibis.
Is that right?
Ken!!!
On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:47:53 +0800, Andrew MacLane
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
>While getting stoned is what that comes along with it, they certainly didn't
>drink to get stoned specifically.
Rick
"Ken!!!" wrote:
and it is used in some places as therapy... especially for HIV
patients who are nauseous from the AZT and other pills they have to
pop... THC increases their appetite and therefore keeps their energy
level up because they can eat and keep food down... improving the
chances of driving down the HIV viral load...
On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:29:41 +0800, "Striding Cloud"
<cas...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>So why can't we say the same for cannabis? I mean .. from the posts flying
>around the newsgroup it's a conclusion that cannabis is a "harmless drug"
>(as quoted by Ken!).
*************************************
delete SPAMMERSDIE for correspondence
ICQ:42366740
*************************************
--
Vishnu
Singapore.
If you can't stand the heat, you can always leave the kitchen!
Tinker <jsx123N...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1415c574...@usw-ex0101-001.remarq.com...
> In article <8ysyOMvMD1TShfCEUCMlbpe1mh=R...@4ax.com>, Andrew MacLane
COE
> > Change the law so that some people can get stoned as they wished?
> >
> Oooh :)
> There's no harm in that.
>
> Excesive drinking makes a person doubly stoned. There are no laws in
> Singapore prohibiting someone from drinking excessively so long as he
> behaves himself in public and/or do not drive.
>
> So why can't we say the same for cannabis? I mean .. from the posts flying
> around the newsgroup it's a conclusion that cannabis is a "harmless drug"
> (as quoted by Ken!).
>
Striding Cloud
Andrew MacLane <drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote in message
> drowning out their sorrows etc etc.. though I won't deny that some does it
out
> of addiction.
Now, people take Ecstasy or Cannabis for many reasons.. for partying, taking
themselves out of their sorrows, etc. though I won't deny that some does it
out of addiction. *cheeky grin*
> While getting stoned is what that comes along with it, they certainly
didn't
> drink to get stoned specifically.
On the contrary, I think *because* they want to get stoned, they drink!
Famous excuse for getting drunk 1: I want to drown my sorrows away!
Famous excuse for getting drunk 2: Let's get high and partieeeeee!
Famous excuse for getting drunk 3 .....
OK, you get my hammering drift.
> _ BUT _, it's NOT a matter of whether the drug is harmless. The matter is
that
> it is abused.
Based on the above famous excuses, excessive drinking is also a form of
abuse. Oh my Gawd, smoking cigarettes is also a form of abuse. We have a
truck load of lung cancer statistics to prove them.
> Do you have any reason to take the drug other than getting stoned?
No. But neither is there any reason to drink other than to get stoned as
well.
> You are trying to say that there is NO absolute isn't it? This is the so
called
> "New Age" and "Modern" philosphy, huh?
> I don't buy that.
Moot point alert. Argument in question.
> The word " NO " _ IS _ an absolute and to say NO ABSOLUTE is an oxymoron.
Being an oxymoron here doesn't qualify that this idea should be discarded.
Actually, do you realise that many rules & regulations that binds society
have an extent of NO ABSOLUTE basis to them?
> Too bad. But the law is the law is the law.
>
Which must be changed.
Regards,
Striding Cloud
Yap Yok Foo
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
> - snipped -
>>It is somewhat of an anomaly if I were to smoke a cigarette and then
>>step into a Singapore government office where smoking is not allowed.
>>The law, as we laymen understand it at the moment, is that the
>>Singapore authority can nap me and charge me for smoking in a
>>non-smoking zone.
>
>But if you refused, then you _ WILL CERTAINLY BE _ charged.
Ooops, sorry, I was not too explicit.
What I meant was, I smoked the cigarette completely and put it out
BEFORE entering the Government office
but there were residual smoke in the lungs
>>That, my friend, I and many others find incredulous
>>If the law is an ass, change it or else you bring ridicule to yourself
>If I don't break the law, it doesn't matter to me if the law exists or not.
So in the above "corrected scenario", I thought I did not break the
law as I ceased smoking before entering a no-smoking zone.
But the laws (as they stand) in Singapore decreed that I was guilty of
an offence due to the residual smoke in my lungs.
**************From Uncle Yap**************
The Malaysian News & Discussion Group
=====================================
Read or subscribe to this group at http://www.eGroups.com/list/beritamalaysia/
To subscribe by e-mail, send e-mail to
beritamalays...@egroups.com
To unsubscribe by e-mail, send e-mail to
beritamalaysi...@egroups.com
Just The Malaysian News
=======================
To subscribe:just send blank e-mail to bmalaysia...@onelist.com
To unsubscribe: bmalaysia-...@onelist.com
Yap Yok Foo
wrote:
>But marijuana is not a narcotic. It is neither classified as a
>narcotic (at least outside Singapore it isn't) nor does have a
>narcotic effect on a person's physiology.
Isn't it true that in Holland, marijuana can be openly purchased?
Is there any other country besides the Netherlands that has this
liberal policy?
Yap Yok Foo
>Let's face it people, NOTHING you people discussed will be changed in
>Singapore.
>If you can't stand the heat, you can always leave the kitchen!
Hey, what happened to the "rugged society" ?
Little bit of resistance and you chabut, eh ?
Emigrate to USA ?
Go back to the 50's and read how LKY and his PAP fought the
colonialists and the other parties. Even after the fantastic election
victory in 1959, the PAP refused to take office until and unless their
eight comrades (Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan, Devan Nair, Woodhull,
Puthucheary, Chan Chiaw Thor, Chan Chong Kin & Chen Say Jame)
were released from detention.
If LKY had been soft like what you advocate, then Singapore will still
be trading copra and rubber sheets. If a particular law is an ass, at
least have the courage to discuss it and hopefully, things might
change. Come on, give some credit to the power-that-be in Singapore.
They do monitor what we say here and if we speak sense rather than
indulge in puerile name-calling, they will listen.
really
>
> But there is no law that state that if you are caught if residual smoke in
your
> lungs it is considered that you have smoked in the premises.
But if there is such a law, would you consider it ridiculous?
Tinker
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
> Thought you were going to tell me that you have found a way to get
> stoned with
> fast cars and sony playstations. ;-)
Got 5 mins to waste now.
This vague thing called "Stoned" seems to be something criminal to you.
Is it a crime to be in "stoned" condition, or is that the "potential
harm" resulting from stoning that is unacceptable? Pls clarify.
For the former, being stoned is a state of mind. Having an orgasm is
also a state of mind. In the church worshipping is also another state
of mind. So wat's wrong with dat??
For the latter, the perceived harm that a stoned person can inflict to
others will raise a big question. Say, horse racing by a punter can
cause a broken family, or arcade games will cause children to fail in
exams, etc. etc.
So, which is which?
[not bad for 5 minutes!]
piper
wrote:
>I totally agree with you Andrew.
>The justifications for using soft drugs is all nonsense. Narcotics are just what they are -
>narcotics.
So you'd also support prohibitions against smoking cigarettes and
getting drunk on alcohol, then. No? Then you're a hypocrite.
Michael
To reply by email, please eliminate "NOSPAM" from my address. Personal messages only!
piper
>Let's face it people, NOTHING you people discussed will be changed in
>Singapore.
>If you can't stand the heat, you can always leave the kitchen!
I agree with you, Vishnu. For the same reason, I had no sympathy for
that American teenaged punk who got caned for vandalizing cars in
Singapore. If you're in Singapore, don't f***ing vandalize cars. And
by the way, from what I remember, most Americans favored the
Singaporean position on caning at the time. I didn't, but I did
respect their consistency in applying their laws equitably.
Striding Cloud
Andrew MacLane <drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote in message
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:36:31 +0800, "Striding Cloud"
<cas...@pacific.net.sg>
> And since anyone can pull any man of the street and ask him if he drinks,
and
> then follow-up with asking him with the reasons on why he drink and get to
the
> points I have given above, my points stand.
>
> However, I doubt you can do the same for cannabis. In fact, I recall a guy
who
> responded with this: "Cannabis? Apa?"
If someone were to conduct a survey on cannabis usage in Perth .. well ...
he might come to a conclusive result.
But doubting that we can verify the same here doesn't mean my reasoning
cannot stand.
> >> While getting stoned is what that comes along with it, they certainly
> >> didn't drink to get stoned specifically.
> >On the contrary, I think *because* they want to get stoned, they drink!
> >Famous excuse for getting drunk 1: I want to drown my sorrows away!
> >Famous excuse for getting drunk 2: Let's get high and partieeeeee!
> >Famous excuse for getting drunk 3 .....
> >OK, you get my hammering drift.
>
> The only thing I do get here is that you are proving that my point about
the
> reasons for alchohol usage is correct.
The point I am getting here is that when people want to get stoned they
drink.
> A few of my friends and myself don't drink to get stoned. We drink because
if we
> don't, we might end up spoiling the mood of the others friends. And I know
when
> to stop drinking so that I won't get stoned.
But that doesn't mean there are other people who think the same way. They
may want to drink just to get stoned.
> Any rule and regulation set _ IS _ an absolute based on someone else's
> standards. Just because it isn't the absolute based on how you interprete
it and
> convinces others about it does not mean that it is not an absolute.
Using your argument, just because you don't drink to get stoned doesn't mean
others don't or won't.
Quoting my previous post:
"Actually, do you realise that many rules & regulations that binds society
have an extent of NO ABSOLUTE basis to them?"
Key word: basis. What I am trying to say here is that: sentences meted out
based on rules and regulations have no absolute. This is not a moot point.
> There is no reason to.
Moot point.
This has become a marathon!! I can't believe it. Hahahaha :)
Regards,
Striding Cloud
druggie
> invalid point.
>
actually it is you who is making an odd point.
>
> 1) Alchohol is consumed for different purposes other than getting stoned.
such as the taste, I would presume. Right now in Amsterdam the Cannabis Cup is starting. This is
a week long affair where people from around the world "taste" the different strains of cannabis.
They have criteria just as wine tasters do and manage to attract people from around the world to
the competition. In addition Marijuana is used as medicine.
>
> 2) Fast cars aren't bought by certain people just for the sake of getting
> stoned.
No, they are bought by middle aged man with a belly who can't get girls any other way. Besides,
if you are implying that the marginal benefit of having a fast car as opposed to a normal car in
Singapore is material in any other way than ego inflation you are just wrong, the island wide
speed limit is 80km/hr. If one can justify spending exhorbitant sums for ego inflation why can't
someone smoke pot for a bit of euphoria. Pot might help avoid that wonderfully singporean sight
of attractive young mena and women vomitting from alcohol around boat quay and on the road to
Zouk.
>
> 3) Sony playstation doesn't make a person stoned.
You're not any good at it eh. If you were good at it you would know that it can suck you in and
easily waste a few hours, just like a good joint.
>
>
> To put it simply, the 2 persons caught in this case, have no reasons whatsoever
> to use cannabis other than wanting to get stoned. So, they should be punished
> for misusing it.
>
> /\ndre\/\/ /\/\acLane
>
> ---
> " The objective of war is not to die for your country but to make the
> other bastard die for his."
> - General George S. Patton
Tinker
>In article <0gc0OFfAWbF3R7...@4ax.com>, Andrew MacLane
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
> In fact, there's nothing criminal about getting stoned as people
> get stoned with
> excessive consumption of alchohol too.
> - rest snipped -
And further down....
> OTOH, can someone who uses cannabis other than for its intended
> purpose, prevent
> himself from getting stoned?
If getting stoned is not criminal, why are the couple jailed?
Further, it was 3 weeks after their smoking session, and the traces
left behind after this period certainly is insufficient to get them
"stoned", which itself is not criminal as you contended.
This brings us back to the issue - that the law is wrong to jail the
couple, in the circumstance of the case. It is plain stupid to allow a
faulty law to continue. The law has to be changed, within reason, and
encompassing reason.
Tinker
non-issue. Read on...
>In article <nig0OEJo0=w9F7fQvtH...@4ax.com>, Andrew MacLane
><drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
> There is no reason for the law to be changed to punish someone for
> using a
> substance other than it's intended purposes, and also when that
> substance is
> contraband in this nation.
I take it that should George W. Bush steps into Singapore, he will be
arrested and jailed. He had admitted to taking cocaine, not for any
medicinal purpose. Hmmm...Clinton also did something that is not
tolerated by Singapore law, and caning for him?
druggie
> >such as the taste, I would presume. Right now in Amsterdam the Cannabis Cup is starting. This is
> >a week long affair where people from around the world "taste" the different strains of cannabis.
> >They have criteria just as wine tasters do and manage to attract people from around the world to
> >the competition. In addition Marijuana is used as medicine.
>
> comments. Not to mention that I have always mentioned about the medical
> properties of cannabis, and have even posted an article with regard to that.
>
> So what is your point?
>
Your point was that alcohol is used for "other"purposes outside of getting drunk. I presumed you meant
tasting because outside of the taste and the high, alcohol doesn't have many uses. I was trying to
show you that as there are wine connoisseurs, there are also cannabis connoisseurs who take their craft
every bit as seriously.
> >> 3) Sony playstation doesn't make a person stoned.
> >You're not any good at it eh. If you were good at it you would know that it can suck you in and
> >easily waste a few hours, just like a good joint.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Back in the days of the Nintendo, I have played some games overnight. But my
> sole intention of playing the game is to get some fun out of it, which is what
> the play-station is intended for. Being "sucked into it" is an un-desirable side
> effect which I didn't intend.
>
You played nintendo overnight. I am sure that the makers of nintendo would not say that one of its
intended uses is to keep people up all night playing. However, as you can find some fun out of it, you
took the freedom to bend the game to your own use. You were probably tired the next day, less
productive than normal. If you played the same game all night, you may have noticed what is known as
"rod burn" where your eyes respond oddly to different colors in the hours following an extended gaming
session. It happens to "video game abusers" like yourself.
>
> OTOH, is getting stoned the intended purpose for cannabis?
>
You keep mentioning intention and yet you don't specify whose. Who is it that intended cows to be
food, where is it stated that beef is legal, where is the proof that beef (or chicken or cabbage) is
"good" for you in the same way that you propose that marijuana smokers must prove that marijuana is
good for you. The lethal dose for marijuana is far higher than the lethal dose of beef or chicken or
cabbage. Don't take my word for it read below. The issue mate is creativity, creativity to do
something different. It is one of the hallmarks of our species. Without it, we would still be in
caves (think man: "don't leave the cave, it is solid, you cannot build a house a strong as a cave, the
house might fall down and crush you so lets just be safe in these caves"). It remains the irony of the
year that Singapore bemoans the lack of creativity and yet crushes anyone who thinks outside the
lines. It reminds me of stories of the pre-Copernican days when the church killed anyone who said the
earth was not the center of the universe. It all seems so obvious to people now but then, ah, you were
a brave soul to buck that law. That is the problem, people seem to think that advances are designed
but science advances by accident and by genius. Genius to see things differently. Einstein was
considered an idiot in his school and so went out on his own (as have most great physicists) simply
because the establishment was too afraid to consider that he was right. Governments constantly (not
just in Sing it is just more overt there than elsewhere) try to say that they are doing the "right"
thing as if any decision they make is more than just a decision of man, guided by the issues and
concerns of the day and limited by the knowledge base of the time and especially the open mindedness
(or lack thereof) of those in charge. Colonialism was an anachronism, a bad idea from the start, and
one that got worse in practice. However, up until 50 years ago, it was the law of the land. Singapore
did not fight for its freedom it was given by people who finally saw their own stupidity for what it
was and luckily because of a few "rebels" like LKY. Remember that LKY broke the law, what makes his
activities different from other law breakers? Answer on every Singaporeans lips, look at things now,
it was the "right" thing. Be careful, according to your logic you must obey any laws, even ones
imposed by say an invading Indonesian army.
druggie
> the 2 who are charged, in taking cannabis just for the intention of stoning. And
> also if any scientific breakthrough has come through the stoning of the some
> brightest scientists so far.
OK, Steve Jobs (you know the guy who created Apple), Paul Allen (the other half of Microsoft).
That's 2 who should resonate in Singapore. Both credit the use of psychoactives including
cannabis and LSD with assisting them to "see" things differently. Sigmund Freud wrote much of his
work on cocaine (not cannabis but demonstrates that it is the user who determines the value of the
substance injested). That is the problem with your point, you seem to think that people have to
prove that something has "value" to be used. Are you suggesting that these 2 kids DIDN'T use
cannabis to assist their creativty. Their studies do seem to lean in that direction. Would
creativty boosting be a defense in Singapore? NO.
Once again we arrive at the simple disagreement: you can't see "value" in getting stoned but
others do. Why should your opinion (or that of the government) be any more valid than any other.
"Because it is the law" is the chorus that such arguments always devolve into which once again
calls into question LKY. Remember, until he pulled it off, his scheme was just another idea, and
thus should have been subjected to the same draconian laws as those he imposes. In other words,
LKY is his own guarantee that the country will never get another like him. Like all city-state
dictatorships, Singapore is struggling under the weight of its own hubris.
Tinker
prosecuted when they enter Singapore when those things they did in
their country is legal but not deemed legal in Singapore. Lets say,
they are persona non grata, no diplomatic immunity. What about
communists that enter Singapore as tourists, eg. from China? Imprison
them under ISA when they visit Singapore?
The implication now is not only in cannabis. It can cover the whole
spectrum of criminal law, perhaps more.
In article <fSw0OHAI8Kshzt...@4ax.com>, Andrew MacLane
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:31:33 -0800, Tinker
> <jsx123N...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >Interesting! We're getting somewhere now. So the "stoned"
> factor is a
> >non-issue. Read on...
> It was a non-issued as far as the law is concerned. It is an issue
> for me,
> however.
> - snipped -
> >I take it that should George W. Bush steps into Singapore, he
> will be
> >arrested and jailed. He had admitted to taking cocaine, not for
> any
> >medicinal purpose. Hmmm...Clinton also did something that is not
> >tolerated by Singapore law, and caning for him?
> Diplomatic immunity.
> No case.
> /\ndre\/\/ /\/\acLane
> ---
> " The objective of war is not to die for your country but to make
> the
> other bastard die for his."
>
> - General George S. Patton
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Tinker
<cas...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>
> ...So the sentence has already been meted out, there isn't anything
>you and me can do....
Its kinda disturbing with this statement. Shall I call this
INDIFFERENCE ?
Not a good national culture, if we wanna be a global player!
druggie
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:09:37 -0800, druggie <dr...@dead.net> wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >OK, Steve Jobs (you know the guy who created Apple), Paul Allen (the other half of Microsoft).
> >That's 2 who should resonate in Singapore. Both credit the use of psychoactives including
> >cannabis and LSD with assisting them to "see" things differently. Sigmund Freud wrote much of his
>
> And what makes you so sure it's those which make them "see" things differently?
>
>
the sentence above reads "both credit the use of...", normally that is suggestive that the two people
mentioned say so and thus I have a degree of surety. The call for proof is interesting and welcome but
the government won't do much in the way of investigation. One study (which was designed to show that
pot caused cancer) was cancelled because the pot users had LESS tumors than the control group.
> nailed the 47 thesis (?)? Perhaps Dr Sun Yat Sen is stoned when he led the
> revolt against the Manchus? Or that Gandhi is stoned when he suggested
> "non-aggressive" protest?
>
Ghandi used bhang (a tea made from marijuana).
>
> But again, the reason why Hitler, Milosevic and the likes "see" racial issues
> differently maybe because they are stoned. Oh now, that I will agree.
>
with whom will you agree, nobody suggested this
> However, if there isn't a need to prove why something has to have value before
> it is used, then why use it?
>
>
Just the kind of thinking which would have kept man in caves, or stopped the industrial revolution or
etc. etc. Why is it that people think that all great inventions are obvious from the start.
> And as for seeing the so called "values" in getting stoned, it remains clear
> that you have no scientific evidence to support that creativity is improved when
> people are stoned.
>
>
and you have none to suggest that it doesn't. Remember I am not saying that everyone should smoke pot,
I am merely suggesting that the state has done little to show why it is illegal. I am not suggesting a
unilateral approach, the state is.
> - snipped -
>
> As for the rest of your LKY bashing stuff... I have no interest in.
>
>
Not at all. I respect his achievments. I simply think that he is both the cure and the sickness. His
will, drive, and hunger drove him to create a Singapore that is truly aweinspiring if one listens to
stories of 30 years ago. His book was riviting. However, it is those same characteristics which
consume him now and this can be seen in the recent reinstitution of heavy handedness. He fears another
him, and thus he will tolerate no dissenting voices. In this way he loses the path. He was given a
job by the masses and as he himself knows, ultimately he serves always at their whim.
druggie
> justify an illegal act. To add to your list : Charlie Parker, Coltrane,
> Clapton, Keith Richards, Hunter Thompson, Tim Leary, the Sadus in India et
> al. It wont surprise me that folk working on the edges of physics, maths and
> new stuff like nano tech etc. (a trip to California will confirm this)
I can confirm it for you. I was a physics grad and yes, virtually all of my
profs got high and this was in the Ivy League.
> may
> use psychoactives for creative purposes. People use altered states for
> spiritual purposes too.
> Does that mean that people who don't take drugs cannot be creative or
> spiritual? I dont think so.
>
>
Not my point. The drug experience, especially the psychedelics, have been
associated with spirituality for the length of recorded histroy. The ideas of
drug prohibition are very western almost uniquely so. Most eastern philosophy is
much more centered around knowing the whole man and the truth and not seperating
his desires from his needs.
I am not advocating drugs, I am advocating choice. A choice freely taken, like
Clapton's, is a great thing and I would guess that if you asked he would be
against drug laws. How many kids avoid touching a hot stove once told not to?
They learn through experience and it is a good thing. Our children are our
savoirs, they rediscover the world for those of us too blinded by society to see.
> We are referring to "outstanding" human beings. Taking a tough line on drugs
> is a protective measure firstly for the young impressionable people and
> secondly to protect the community from the behaviour of the more criminally
> inclined addicts.
>
> BTW Eric Clapton is now helping people rehabilitate.
>
> Drug addiction very often leads to crime. Illicit drug use (which means that
> you dont have to be an addict, using a banned substance even once means you
> break the law) is an unlawful act. If people choose to do iilegal things,
> they must lie and hide to protect themselves: the chain effect of "wrong"
> choices.
>
>
drug addiction is not the normative state of drug use but that aside, drug
addiction leads to crime in large part because of the illegal nature of the
substances. Their legal status inflates their price (cocaine is worth more than
its weight in gold) and thus an addiction that could be fed easily for a few
$/day requires enormous sums.
> Sending a clear message to the world and sticking to the philosophy of zero
> tolerance takes courage, and IMO is the correct stance for any responsible
> govt.
>
>
The thing that is tough with zero-tolerence is that if you misjudge your numbers
you are out of luck. You can incarcerate 1% of your population but can you
incarcerate 10% or 20%. Piss people off enough and the inuustice itself draws
more to the cause. This is happening right now in the US.
> What other argument is there, really? Singapore is anti-drugs and makes that
> very clear. The VAST majority of people support that, and our tough laws are
> respected by people all over the world.
>
>
In Singapore you may be right, in the US, 77% of people surveyed were in favor of
a cease fire in the drug war especially for pot although (to be fair) they were
not in favor of legalization.
> We dont need another "recreational" chemical nor the culture, lifestyle and
> criminal activity that goes with it. It's clear that people (with VERY few
> exceptions) just cannot conduct themselves responsibly when they are stoned.
>
>
The latest data from the US (I don't know about Oz or Sing) estimates that 7 out
of 10 drug users work and are productive memebers of society. One study by the
ACLU showed that companies in Silicon Valley which did not drug test were
significantly more productive than those that did. I know it sounds odd but
there is such a thing as responsible drug use and while I don't know them, these
2 kids fit the description. This policy of exclusion will only ruin their lives
and society will lose as a result.
> A tough stance is needed, coupled with understanding and compassion for young
> people
> going through life.
>
> Being merciful when necessary, doesnt mean "going soft." But you need the
> tough law in place first before anything else, or the message simply doesnt
> get through. Even if people disagree with the law, they will focus on it
> before they make their "choices."
>
When you first started driving did you ever speed? Do you now. Have you ever
done anything impulsive, impetuous, wild. I surf. It makes me feel alive. It
is risky but at the same time it reminds me that we live in a chaotic
ill-understood universe. There will always be (and there have always been)
people who take drugs. Like all other groups of people their will be responsible
ones and less responsible ones. Just because some members of a class of people
behave irresponsibly should we outlaw them all? If you can outlaw drug users,
who is next. Remember that everyone has negative traits, will your trait be next
on the list?
>
druggie
>
> I was aware that people moved off to develop and use something because they have
> the specific usage for it in mind. Watt didn't invent the steam engine because
> he thought that the steam is fun and that the misty feeling it creates makes him
> stoned.. nor did Thomas Edison invent light bulbs because he thought it would be
> fun to see something glow using electricity. They all have a fixed purpose in
> mind when they did what they did.
>
>
I can see from the above that you are not a scientist. The knowledge base expands in two ways,
incrementally and in great leaps. The normal pace is slow and crawling as the "believers" of a discipline
try to demonstrate ever more diverse outcomes of the current mode of thinking. It moves in leaps when
people reconsider base assumptions and see that they are not absolutes or see the failings in the current
mode of thinking. Copernicus didn't set out to "discover" that the earth revolved around the sun (in fact
he was expressly forbidden to think it). Watt didn't start with the steam engine, he started as a crackpot
wasting team fooling around with exploding steam bells. It was only later that he saw the application for
his foolish experiments. Thomas Edison was thrown out of every school he attended because of his radical
ideas and the light bulb was not on his mind when he started experimenting, the properties of electricity
were. Incandesence caused by a current was far along the track.
Perhaps you should do some reading on the Philosophy of Science and the History of Scientific Invention. It
is fascinating to see that accident, chance, what have you play a far bigger role in scientific advance than
is remembered. That is why freedom is key, without freedom we stagnate.
>
Tinker
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:57:27 -0800, Tinker
> <jsx123N...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> - snipped -
> whole
> >spectrum of criminal law, perhaps more.
> The law covers only the abuse of drugs.
> And the funny part is, you people made no hoo-hah when the UK
> detained Pinochet.
Ahem...you snipped off the juicy part of my msg. To add a little
comment, Singapore courts has ALWAYS counted on law of Precedence, once
an example has been set. Our judges are not only good at that, they
are VERY GOOD at using it, including our CJ.
So, Andrew, I repeat my question. Will a foreigner be prosecuted by
our law if there are traces of nicotine or cannabis, while visiting
Singapore?
Tinker
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:37:01 -0800, druggie <dr...@dead.net> wrote:
> >Ghandi used bhang (a tea made from marijuana).
> So, he thought of an Independent India when he is stoned?
Holy cow, were you born yesterday? Gandhi did even more greater things
when chewing betel nuts! Probably the high end technology in computer
chip design and manufacture in Taiwan cud be attributed to betel nuts!
Betel contains a narcotic stimulant, arecoline, and has been chewed in
S Asia since ancient times. Millions in India, most of west Asia,
including Taiwan chews this nut. Its also in most of SE Asia, usually
legalised for sale, including Malaysia and Singapore. How does this
stuff compare to cannabis??
Tinker
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
> I get tired arguing with sick sack of shits who pull examples of
> great people
> and use them as some kind of leverage for their unprovable
> arguments.
> Now, to put an end to this creativity from stoning bullshit,...
Ah...you finally came back to reality. Precisely my point, too, that
stoning did NO HARM to the individual. Whiile cannabis may not help
one gets brighter, it conversely does no dull one's brain despite the
"highs" it produce. Welcome back to earth!
Tinker
physical harm, although classified a drug (most things are drugs too),
can we agree on this...
1) The law is faulty in sending the 2 persons to jail on basis of drug
traces.
2) That a faulty law need to be corrected, and..
3) Our law making process needs to be improved, and examined in
greater depth before passing into law, We have seen too many youths
being sent to jail in the last 3 months, some deserving some not, and a
review of jailing/caning sentences is in order.
Any comments?
Striding Cloud
Andrew MacLane <drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote in message
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:17:32 +0800, "Striding Cloud"
<cas...@pacific.net.sg>
> wrote:
>
> And so your reasoning stands in Perth and maybe several other places. But
it
> doesn't stand here.
Wait a minute! Refer to my very original post I am asking WHY people would
want to take cannabis: for partying? For drowning away sorrows? .. etc etc.
So, there isn't really any geographical boundaries to the answer. So your
above statement is irrelevant.
> True. But not everyone drinks to get stoned.
> There are things called a light drinker.
> Perhaps you know of someone who can vary his consumption of cannabis
without
> getting stoned?
Wait another minute! This getting stoned thing has gone way off track from
my original post. Please refer to it. I used the word: excessive drinking.
But anyway, read below.
> There is no such thing called NO ABSOLUTE. The point is that when you take
a
> stand on something (regardless if it's rules and regulations) and make a
> statement, then you are making that statement based on an absolute.
There's NO
> two ways about it.
Andrew, you can't catch my drift at all.
What I am trying to say here is that: SENTENCES meted out based on rules and
regulations have no absolute. This is not a moot point.
Anyway, this is my very final post on this topic. Reason: The discussion
thread has gone way off the track from my original post and its intended
message I wanted to deliver. It seems we are both going on the wrong
directions of this discussion, hence the discussion has degenerated into
arguing over individual piece-meal points when we have failed to see my
original holistic approach on the topic.
But it doesn't matter does it? Because callous as it sounds, at the end of
the day, it wasn't you and me who got into trouble and find ourselves in
jail. It was those two unfortunate people. So the sentence has already been
meted out, there isn't anything you and me can do. And it would be so much
productive if we could just go on with our lives and as for me, I'm looking
forward to 11:40pm tonight where I can catch my favourite entertainer
Madonna being interviewed on TV.
Regards,
Striding Cloud
ps. But it was good ideas being thrown out among everyone who participated
in this discussion.
m0bius
>
> OK, Steve Jobs (you know the guy who created Apple), Paul Allen (the other
> half of Microsoft).
> That's 2 who should resonate in Singapore. Both credit the use of
> psychoactives including
> cannabis and LSD with assisting them to "see" things differently. Sigmund
> Freud wrote much of his
> determines the value of the
> substance injested).
Proponnets for drug reform often use the few exceptional human beings
justify an illegal act. To add to your list : Charlie Parker, Coltrane,
Clapton, Keith Richards, Hunter Thompson, Tim Leary, the Sadus in India et
al. It wont surprise me that folk working on the edges of physics, maths and
new stuff like nano tech etc. (a trip to California will confirm this) may
use psychoactives for creative purposes. People use altered states for
spiritual purposes too.
Does that mean that people who don't take drugs cannot be creative or
spiritual? I dont think so.
We are referring to "outstanding" human beings. Taking a tough line on drugs
is a protective measure firstly for the young impressionable people and
secondly to protect the community from the behaviour of the more criminally
inclined addicts.
BTW Eric Clapton is now helping people rehabilitate.
Drug addiction very often leads to crime. Illicit drug use (which means that
you dont have to be an addict, using a banned substance even once means you
break the law) is an unlawful act. If people choose to do iilegal things,
they must lie and hide to protect themselves: the chain effect of "wrong"
choices.
Sending a clear message to the world and sticking to the philosophy of zero
tolerance takes courage, and IMO is the correct stance for any responsible
govt.
[..]
> you can't see "value" in
> getting stoned but
> others do. Why should your opinion (or that of the government) be any more
> valid than any other.
I would hate to think that we tell our children to break the law because
there is some "value." You're right: values are personal. LAws are not. They
are for everyone.
> "Because it is the law" is the chorus that such arguments always devolve
> into which once again
> calls into question LKY.
What other argument is there, really? Singapore is anti-drugs and makes that
very clear. The VAST majority of people support that, and our tough laws are
respected by people all over the world.
Our "right" to get stoned and or trip-out on certain substances has been
taken away. How "bad" is that , really?
We had the legality of strong drugs in Asia once: Opium. What a mess.
>Remember, until he pulled it off, his scheme was
> just another idea, and
> thus should have been subjected to the same draconian laws as those he
> imposes.
Well this is one draconian stance that has my full support.
We dont need another "recreational" chemical nor the culture, lifestyle and
criminal activity that goes with it. It's clear that people (with VERY few
exceptions) just cannot conduct themselves responsibly when they are stoned.
I have lived in Oz (Freo: lots of illicit drugs here) for many years now
and have seen the result (and been a victim of drug related crime) of a
'soft approach" to the use of illicit substances. It doesnt work. A tough
stance is needed, coupled with understanding and compassion for young people
going through life.
Being merciful when necessary, doesnt mean "going soft." But you need the
tough law in place first before anything else, or the message simply doesnt
get through. Even if people disagree with the law, they will focus on it
before they make their "choices."
I am not against the medical use of cannabis sativa or the opiates. Those
are the people who REALLY need drugs....lots of them, whenever they need
them.
ciao
m0bius
Freo, West Oz
DysH
> >If someone were to conduct a survey on cannabis usage in Perth .. well
..
> >he might come to a conclusive result.
> >But doubting that we can verify the same here doesn't mean my reasoning
> >cannot stand.
Andrew MacLane <drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote in message
> And so your reasoning stands in Perth and maybe several other places. But
it
> doesn't stand here.
What kind of argument is that ??
If an argument stands, it stands.
Why should geographical differences affect it ?
i.e if a survey is conducted overseas and that there are people who take
cannabis to drown their sorrows etc etc the possibility of that being
applicable to WELL TRAVELLED Singaporeans doesn't automatically get
cancelled out just because most Singaporeans are ignorant of it.
PS: not that I support the argument, but I just find the logic flawed.
=)
DysH
druggie
country
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:39:11 -0800, Tinker <jsx123N...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >So, Andrew, I repeat my question. Will a foreigner be prosecuted by
> >our law if there are traces of nicotine or cannabis, while visiting
> >Singapore?
>
> Nicotine no. Cannabis, Yes.
druggie
You twist the argument. YOU stated that there were no reasons to use cannabis other than to get
stoned. I corrected your mistake. I did not say that everyone smokes pot to enhance creativity,
just that some do and of those some have acheived success. Conversely, those who smoke just to
get high are doing little to damage themselves and thus are of little to no danger to society.
Thus the government response vis-a-vis cannabis (especially consumption which is not prosecuted in
many other places in the wrold) seems absurd.
> I get tired arguing with sick sack of shits who pull examples of great people
> and use them as some kind of leverage for their unprovable arguments.
>
> Now, to put an end to this creativity from stoning bullshit, let's put it down
> in hard facts that stoning is indeed a key element to creativity.
>
> 1) What is the percentage of inventors, musicians or what not are stoners as
> compared to those who are never under some hallucination effect when equally
> creative?
>
> 2) What is the percentage of people who claims to get stoned to get creativity
> ever made it? In short, assuming that everyone is getting stoned to get
> creative, is it that _ everyone _ of those stoners attained their achievements
> by getting stoned? or just that most of them get stoned, knocked out and end up
> with nothing anyway?
druggie
getting fit is a reason to run because, clearly, there are people who never need to run to get fit.
In addition your use of the term "excuse" suggests that there is some ulterior or deceptive motive
which you are privy to but which is kept from the world at large. How can you purport to know the
motivation of a whole class of people (in the US this group is roughly 80 million).
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 05:58:41 -0800, druggie <dr...@dead.net> wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >You twist the argument. YOU stated that there were no reasons to use cannabis other than to get
> >stoned. I corrected your mistake. I did not say that everyone smokes pot to enhance creativity,
> - snipped -
>
> And I say it's an _ EXCUSE _ to say that enhancing creativity is a reason to get
> stoned because clearly, there are people who never need to get stoned to be
> creative.
>
> /\ndre\/\/ /\/\acLane
>
> ---
> " And where have all the soldiers gone, long time passing?
> Where have all the soldiers gone, a long time ago?
> Where have all the soldiers gone?
> Gone to graveyards, every one!
> When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn? "
>
> - Excerpts from the song "Where Have All The Flowers Gone"
druggie
I love the internet
Sure. Wait till someone under the effect of Cannibis do something terrible.
Then, we come and talk about whether it's so benign after all.
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:20:20 -0800, Tinker <jsx123N...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> I have never mentioned anything about getting stoned being harmful, nor
> mentioned anything about it dulling the brain. What I have said is that there is
> no reason to get stoned, and that it is NOT productive to get stoned.
>
>
Actually you did make at least an inference to the use of cannabis being harmful:
>>Sure. Wait till someone under the effect of Cannibis do something terrible.
>>Then, we come and talk about whether it's so benign after all.
I do agree that your opinion all along has been that it is not productive to get stoned. That is
what we are arguing about. The productivty of being stoned is, to use your term, subjective.
Laws tend to be absolutes, especially as applied to this case. The whole point of the thread is
that the Sing Government has overstepped in prosecuting these 2. Sifting through your arguments
we can see why. You seem to feel (although not because you have really thought it through, rather
because it has been force fed to you) that the law is some imposed utility function desigend to
guide society. As you live in that country I can only say that I hope your faith in the
government's ability to choose the path to greater utility is justified. People tend to get a bit
pissed off when the rewards of "obeying the law" don't arrive.
> So came the point about some people stoning to be creative, which I believe is a
> load of crap as there are people who doesn't need to be stoned to get creative.
>
> If I believe that crap, I might as well believe some my platoon mates who said
> they need a smoke to pass their 2.4 run and their standard obstacle course
> during my full time national service days.
>
> /\ndre\/\/ /\/\acLane
>
> ---
druggie
terms you used. You are forgetting that you were trying to prove that nobody smoked pot to become more
creative (you used the term excuse) via that flawed logical construct. You now see that the construct
was flawed which refutes your previous argument.
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:11:32 -0800, druggie <dr...@dead.net> wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >Your logic is a bit convoluted here. Using the same construct, it is also an excuse to say that
> >getting fit is a reason to run because, clearly, there are people who never need to run to get fit.
> - snipped -
>
> It is your logic that is convoluted. Another case of people making irrelevant
> comparisons.
>
> While it is true that there are people who resort to other means to get fit, it
> is also true, and proven _ scientifically _ and _ convincingly _ that running,
> as an exercise, does help people to get fit.
>
> So far, you have failed to prove _ scientifically _ and _ convincingly _ that
> stoning does help people to become creative.
druggie
> considers that society has to be kept in line by means of the Law. *
>
> >guide society. As you live in that country I can only say that I hope your faith in the
>
> where to draw the line between maintaining order and social engineering a
> society to conform to one man or a group of men's standards.
> But I still prefer that over anarchy and a society tugged mindlessly and
> subjectively in all directions.
>
>
It looks like we have wound this thread up. Our disagreements are lucidly stated and we now find
ourselves in no-man's land. That is, time will tell if one ideology has merits over the other. I tend
to take a more systematic view and think that each ideology has its time. Freedom has its drawbacks.
It requires patience and tolerence, something which Singapore could ill afford 30 years ago. There is
no way Singapore would be what it is today without state guidance. I wonder if Singapore can afford to
not embrace Freedom as the global economy moves away from industrialization and standardization and
moves towards a system which rewards creativity but that is a question for time.
>
> I just don't want to get into trouble with the law, regardless of how stupid the
> law maybe.
>
> After all, the time I have to spend to lambast the law and agitate for change
> may as well have been used in more useful endeavours, especially those which
> will allow me to live more comfortably.
>
> Call that indifference or selfishness if you wish. * sigh *
>
>
I call it intelligence in your country. One cannot share in the fruits of Singapore without following
the rules, that is quite clear. One mistake and the game is over. Time will tell if this exclusionary
policy keeps people in line or drives them away in search of greener pastures.
druggie
>
> <begin quote:
>
> " And I say it's an _ EXCUSE _ to say that enhancing creativity is a reason to
> creative. "
>
> End quote>
>
The statement above and the explanation below are not equivalent. I can see now what you mean but that is
not what you wrote above. The above statement is presented as a proof while that below is merely the
expression of your opinion and clearly a retreat from the all-encompassing nature of the prior statement.
That written, I accept the softening of your position.
>
> I define an excuse as something someone gives when he has no convincing reasons.
> Which means that I do not consider it a convincing reason for someone to say
> that he's getting stoned to be creative.
>
> I did not intend my statement to mean that nobody is smoking pot to get creative
> because the person who gave what I considered an excuse may be a convincing
> reason to him to smoke pot.
>
druggie
chemically so the wide array of chemicals you cite only implies that the item was once living.
Operator wrote:
> Marijuana or cannabis is a plant containing more than 60 ingredients. The active component is
> tetrahydrocannabinol. I reproduced the following from
> http://www.marijuana-hemp.com/cin/facts/thcdata.shtml
>
> Of interest are:
> 1. It is listed as a narcotic. But even if it is not (narcotic is but a label) it is a drug
> acting on the central nervous system like heroin, cocaine & morphine or the opiates.
>
Everything you ingest, breathe, even touch has an effect on the central nervous system. Sometimes
the effect is so minor that it does not reach your awareness but it is there. Eat a big plate of
hokkien mee and you will feel tired does this mean we should outlaw hokkien mee? Any comparison of
cannabis or the scientific term cannabinoid agents to opiods or cocainoids is a reach, they are very
different substances with radically different effects.
> 2. Long term use leads to squamous metaplasia of the respiratory lining - that's cancer to put
> it simply.
>
False, the limited research on that effect of cannabis does suggest respiratory decline but not
specifically cancer and this is related to the method of intake, not the substance itself. In
fact, one study (the only study of pot as a cancer agent) showed a significant decrease in tumor
development in the THC group vs. the control group. It is smoking that leads to ill health and
combustion is not the only means of taking cannabis. One can eat it, drink it a tea, or vaporise
the THC and avoid most negative health effects.
If you want a good place to start to get a fair view of the science and debate on drug policy.
George Soros sponsered a center to research this topic and affect legislation in the US. the url
is: http://www.lindesmith.org
One other thing, the fact sheet you added was done in 1993, well before the recent uptick in
cannabinoid receptor research. The science base has expanded since that sheet was written.
Tinker
> convincingly _ that
> stoning does help people to become creative.
You are beginning to sound like a nagging old bag! Are you revisiting
the sub-topic that *everything* a person do must be something useful?
There are lots of things you and me do in a day that doesn't mean a
thing. Ask our CJ and you can easily list a full page if he is honest.
Stop your attempts to detach from the issue, ok?
What the young couple did (outside Singapore) did not harm themself or
any member of the public. The only reason they were indicted and sent
to jail was only one - that some moron changed the law and amazingly
majority-voted in parliament into law. And our courts always
administer the law by the LETTER, quite forgetting the spirit and
principles of justice. We see lots of Lord Denning wannabes, but they
are way off the mark.
Now, in this case, there is no victim, no aggrieved party, no one
suffers, no public peace was disturbed, ie. nothing happened! Why,
then, did our law sent them to jail?
And this faulty law is going to drive away our tourists and foreign
businessmen, if Singapore starts to prosecute people for things done or
consumed in their motherland, should they step into Singapore. Are we
appointing ourself as international policeman and judge for the world?
Or plain playing God?
druggie
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:56:09 -0800, Tinker <jsx123N...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >> So far, you have failed to prove _ scientifically _ and _
> >> convincingly _ that
> >> stoning does help people to become creative.
> >You are beginning to sound like a nagging old bag! Are you revisiting
> >the sub-topic that *everything* a person do must be something useful?
> - rest flushed -
>
> I am not revisiting the topic.
>
> I am stating that if something has no useful purposes, then there is no reason
> for it to be done. Which is why I am in support of retaining the law in
> question.
druggie
> which in this case not breaking the law. If people feel that a law is
> unfair, they can lobby to change it.
>
Different techniques for different people. Thomas Jefferson once said, "If a law is
unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." I believe
this but that is my choice.
>
> I am all for people obeying the "laws of the land", even if they think the
> laws are "an annoyance." I happen to think that taxation is legal theft. I
> also know that if I dont pay Caeser what is required by the law, I face
> jail. So I pay, moaning and groaning.....
>
> >
> cannot hit, but they do use "on occasion." I don't wish to see kids carry
> out that behaviour without some sort of "way out." Until OUR (not the US or
> any other country) govt. and society have a policy of offering the proper
> information so kids can be "led" instead of "forced", strict laws are
> neccessary.
>
>
Here's a question for you. Do you think that we will ever be able to forget that we
have invented/discovered a number of "drugs" which interact pleasureably with our
central nervous system, i.e. will society as a whole ever give up drugs. If so,
then the issue is cloudy as the attainability of the goal makes the price payable
although some may debate that point. My belief is that the process of trying to
eradicate drugs has made society a less and less inviting place to be. This drives
more people to drugs which starts the whole cycle around. If one is to choose to
not do drugs one has to have options and if society at large is an unpleasent place
to be, drugs become attractive. Once drug users have a problem, they don;t see
society as a help they see it as a hurt, something to be feared. They won;t just
keep you from your drugs, they will imprison you.
What is "proper" information? Shouldn't the truth suffice.
>
> I would say with certainty that most Singaporeans support the tough stance
> on illegal drugs.
>
> I think we have to be very cautious about using data from another country,
> and a different culture.
>
>
You are right, you should be cautious about data from another country. The problem
is that you have no data from your own country and there is no way to get it. How
can you survey drug use if you can go to jail for having metabolites in your urine
due to something you did outside of your country. Tell the surveyor you take drugs
and you are in jail too.
> I am aware of the figures. The same arguments are levied here in Oz as
> people protest aginanst the "violation of civil liberties" when they are
> asked to go for a piss test at work or during job selection.
>
> The point is drug testing will become part of life. I'd be telling this to
> the kids loud and clear so they wont get any surprises later. Yes, they can
> beat the piss tests, the hair and blood tests...but what for? They live a
> lie at the end of the day because they have to lie and hide a certain part
> of their being.
>
>
> Yes. No not now, if I can help it. Yes, as much as possible...life is for
> living.
> You dont have to be stoned or tripping. What's wrong with being clear headed
> and aware, living right here, in the moment without your senses dulled or
> enhanced....just the way it IS?
>
>
Nothing is wrong with that, what is wrong about doing drugs, if you behave
responsibly while doing them (as with all else in life). You live life your way and
let others live life their way.
> >I surf. It makes me feel alive. It
> > is risky
>
> Err...since when was surfing "risky" (I live around 3 surfing beaches) I
> body surf (not good at the hang-ten standing-up stuff), used to wave ski and
> sail catamarans.
big wave surfing mate, stand on a board a few times in 3 meter surf and then tell me
how not dangerous it is.
>
> Until a better way is found, I would say "yes." I have yet to see
> "responsible behaviour" as the norm. It's *always* the exception.
>
>
How do you know that? Only because that is what you read or from your own
experience. Drug use is illegal, hence underground, difficult to track.
> That's up to the people who make the laws, who are voted in or out by you
> and I.
>
> "Negative trait?" I thought you were pro choice ;) ?
>
>
why should it be up to anybody. there is no need for someone to pass judgement on
how we each live our lives. so long as we don't bug others, live and let live. If
you go that route, you don't have to worry if your vice falls out of vogue (c'mon
you know you do something that others might think not worth doing) because all vices
are allowed. then let social pressure and true experience guide the way. if drug
use is bad, let it happen out in the open so that we will learn first hand and then
choose ourselves, freely. Think about this, if the powers that be really believed
that drugs were as bad as they say, they would just let it happen, let the people
die and be done with it. We would all learn and move on.
> BTW, the ganja users are unfortunately disadvantaged under Singapore law. 10
> years ago they didnt have cheap and easy tests for cannabis like they do now
> (hair, urine, cellular scrape from inside of mouth) Being fat soluble, the
> stuff in ganja tends to stay longer in the human body. Heroin for instance
> only stays in for a few days. So if a person ate some "space cake"or a "hash
> cookie", did a "bucket," "bong" or "cone" 3 or 4 weeks before they returned
> to Singapore, they are at risk of being caught in the event of a random
> urine test.
>
> That would make me think very carefully about the choices available to me.
>
> m0bius
> Freo, WA
Operator
tetrahydrocannabinol. I reproduced the following from
http://www.marijuana-hemp.com/cin/facts/thcdata.shtml
Of interest are:
1. It is listed as a narcotic. But even if it is not (narcotic is but a label) it is a drug
acting on the central nervous system like heroin, cocaine & morphine or the opiates.
2. Long term use leads to squamous metaplasia of the respiratory lining - that's cancer to put
it simply.
3. The website is a pro-marijuana site.
Operator
TOXICITY
TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL:
TOXICITY DATA: 666 MG/KG ORAL-RAT LD50; 482 MG/KG ORAL-MOUSE LD50; 525
MG/KG
ORAL-DOG LDLO; 29 MG/KG INTRAVENOUS-RAT LD50; 42 MG/KG INTRAVENOUS-MOUSE
LD50; 128 MG/KG INTRAVENOUS-MONKEY LDLO; 373 MG/KG INTRAPERITONEAL-RAT
LD50; 168 MG/KG INTRAPERITONEAL-MOUSE LD50; REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS DATA
(RTECS); MUTAGENIC DATA (RTECS); TUMORIGENIC DATA (RTECS).
CARCINOGEN STATUS: NONE.
ACUTE TOXICITY LEVEL: MODERATELY TOXIC BY INGESTION.
TARGET EFFECTS: CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DEPRESSANT. POISONING MAY ALSO
AFFECT
THE RESPIRATORY, CARDIOVASCULAR AND IMMUNE SYSTEMS.
ADDITIONAL DATA: THE USE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES MAY ENHANCE THE TOXIC
EFFECTS.
POISONING MAY IMPAIR THE PERFORMANCE OF TASKS REQUIRING ALERTNESS.
INTERACTIONS WITH MEDICATIONS HAVE BEEN REPORTED.
HEALTH EFFECTS AND FIRST AID
INHALATION:
TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL:
NARCOTIC.
ACUTE EXPOSURE- SINCE TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL IS AN ACTIVE INGREDIENT IN
MARIJUANA, THE TOXIC EFFECTS WILL BE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF MARIJUANA.
INHALATION OF MARIJUANA SMOKE MAY IRRITATE MUCOUS MEMBRANES CAUSING
DRYNESS, HOARSENESS AND BRONCHODILATION. RHINITIS, PHARYNGITIS AND
ASTHMA
MAY ALSO OCCUR ACUTELY, BUT ARE MORE COMMON AFTER CHRONIC EXPOSURE.
SYSTEMIC EFFECTS MAY OCCUR AS DETAILED IN ACUTE INGESTION.
CHRONIC EXPOSURE- SNIFFING MARIJUANA MAY CAUSE AN ULCERATED OR PERFORATED
NASAL SEPTUM. REPEATED SMOKING MAY RESULT IN COUGH, LARYNGITIS,
BRONCHITIS, OTHER RESPIRATORY EFFECTS AS IN ACUTE INHALATION AND
PULMONARY FUNCTION IMPAIRMENT. LONG-TERM USE BY HUMANS AND EXPERIMENTAL
ANIMALS HAS LEAD TO SQUAMOUS METAPLASIA OF THE TRACHEAL MUCOSA.
SYSTEMIC
EFFECTS MAY OCCUR AS DETAILED IN CHRONIC INGESTION. REGULAR CHRONIC USE
MAY RESULT IN REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS IN MALES INCLUDING DECREASED
TESTICULAR
1 OHS23005 PAGE 003 OF
006
SIZE, TESTOSTERONE LEVELS, SPERM COUNT AND MOTILITY AND ABNORMALITIES
IN SPERM. GYNECOMASTIA MAY DEVELOP WITH HEAVY USE. FEMALES MAY
EXPERIENCE
A HIGH FREQUENCY OF ABNORMAL PERIODS, LESS OVULATION AND DECREASED
PROLACTIN LEVELS. REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS HAVE ALSO BEEN REPORTED IN
ANIMALS.
Operator
and getting drunk on alcohol. If you can't, then you're a hypocrite. If I am kind enough, I may
let you know the answers.
Operator
piper wrote:
> So you'd also support prohibitions against smoking cigarettes and
> getting drunk on alcohol, then. No? Then you're a hypocrite.
>
> Michael
>
>
m0bius
Good points.
>
> I am not advocating drugs, I am advocating choice. A choice freely taken,
like
> Clapton's, is a great thing and I would guess that if you asked he would be
> against drug laws. How many kids avoid touching a hot stove once told not to?
> They learn through experience and it is a good thing. Our children are our
> savoirs, they rediscover the world for those of us too blinded by society to
see.
Which is why I stated that I thought the sentences for the couple were
harsh.
I am pro choice too. People should be led to make the "preferred" choice,
which in this case not breaking the law. If people feel that a law is
unfair, they can lobby to change it.
I am all for people obeying the "laws of the land", even if they think the
laws are "an annoyance." I happen to think that taxation is legal theft. I
also know that if I dont pay Caeser what is required by the law, I face
jail. So I pay, moaning and groaning.....
>
> drug addiction is not the normative state of drug use but that aside, drug
> addiction leads to crime in large part because of the illegal nature of the
> substances. Their legal status inflates their price (cocaine is worth more
than
> its weight in gold) and thus an addiction that could be fed easily for a few
> $/day requires enormous sums.
Of course. The highly inflated price is because of the black market and
organised crime. And it also means that people buying illegal drugs are
breaking the law.
There is a line between "addiction" and "habit forming." Recreational users
"I like to smoke a joint now and then," or "Yeah, I cop, but only on the
weekends" may be leading into "habitual" use. No they wont go crazy if they
cannot hit, but they do use "on occasion." I don't wish to see kids carry
out that behaviour without some sort of "way out." Until OUR (not the US or
any other country) govt. and society have a policy of offering the proper
information so kids can be "led" instead of "forced", strict laws are
neccessary.
Having said that, laws need to be used properly, for fairness and justice to
prevail. Using a law originally planned to keep tabs on addicts to
incaserate 2 people for a year (victimless crime) was harsh and unneccesary.
>
>> Sending a clear message to the world and sticking to the philosophy of zero
>> tolerance takes courage, and IMO is the correct stance for any responsible
>> govt.
>>
>>
>
> The thing that is tough with zero-tolerence is that if you misjudge your
numbers
> you are out of luck. You can incarcerate 1% of your population but can you
> incarcerate 10% or 20%. Piss people off enough and the inuustice itself draws
> more to the cause. This is happening right now in the US.
I dont think that the majority of people in Singapore are pissed off with
our drug laws and there isnt any chance in the near future that they will
be. I'll bet zero tolerence will be around for sometime.
Drug use/abuse is very much "alien" and "outlawed" in our social scripting,
so I doubt that there will be even 1% (~30,000) of the population
incarserated for drug offenses
>
>> What other argument is there, really? Singapore is anti-drugs and makes that
>> very clear. The VAST majority of people support that, and our tough laws are
>> respected by people all over the world.
>>
>>
>
> In Singapore you may be right, in the US, 77% of people surveyed were in favor
of
> a cease fire in the drug war especially for pot although (to be fair) they
were
> not in favor of legalization.
I would say with certainty that most Singaporeans support the tough stance
on illegal drugs.
I think we have to be very cautious about using data from another country,
and a different culture.
>> We dont need another "recreational" chemical nor the culture, lifestyle and
>> criminal activity that goes with it. It's clear that people (with VERY few
>> exceptions) just cannot conduct themselves responsibly when they are stoned.
>>
>>
>
> The latest data from the US (I don't know about Oz or Sing) estimates that 7
out
> of 10 drug users work and are productive memebers of society. One study by
the
> ACLU showed that companies in Silicon Valley which did not drug test were
> significantly more productive than those that did. I know it sounds odd but
> there is such a thing as responsible drug use and while I don't know them,
these
> 2 kids fit the description. This policy of exclusion will only ruin their
lives
> and society will lose as a result.
I am aware of the figures. The same arguments are levied here in Oz as
people protest aginanst the "violation of civil liberties" when they are
asked to go for a piss test at work or during job selection.
The point is drug testing will become part of life. I'd be telling this to
the kids loud and clear so they wont get any surprises later. Yes, they can
beat the piss tests, the hair and blood tests...but what for? They live a
lie at the end of the day because they have to lie and hide a certain part
of their being.
I do believe most people will feel a lot more comfortable if they knew the
airline they are flying with regularly tested their pilots for drugs (as is
required I think)
There is a differnece between designing and inventing stuff tripped out on
mescal avec tequila and flying a plane or walking around in public fully
armed as a law enforcement officer in the same altered (perhaps
hallucinating) state.
>
>
>> A tough stance is needed, coupled with understanding and compassion for young
>> people
>> going through life.
>>
>> Being merciful when necessary, doesnt mean "going soft." But you need the
>> tough law in place first before anything else, or the message simply doesnt
>> get through. Even if people disagree with the law, they will focus on it
>> before they make their "choices."
>>
>
> When you first started driving did you ever speed? Do you now. Have you ever
> done anything impulsive, impetuous, wild.
Yes. No not now, if I can help it. Yes, as much as possible...life is for
living!
You dont have to be stoned or tripping. What's wrong with being clear headed
and aware, living right here, in the moment without your senses dulled or
enhanced....just the way it IS?
>I surf. It makes me feel alive. It
> is risky
Err...since when was surfing "risky" (I live around 3 surfing beaches) I
body surf (not good at the hang-ten standing-up stuff), used to wave ski and
sail catamarans.
>it reminds me that we live in a chaotic
> ill-understood universe. There will always be (and there have always been)
> people who take drugs. Like all other groups of people their will be
responsible
> ones and less responsible ones. Just because some members of a class of
people
> behave irresponsibly should we outlaw them all?
Until a better way is found, I would say "yes." I have yet to see
"responsible behaviour" as the norm. It's *always* the exception.
Whilst we may live in a chaotic, ill understood universe, one thing is
absolute certain : we are here, in the present. Presently certain substances
are verboten. We have to make our calls in the present, relevant to in this
discussion: Singapore's stand on drugs.
>If you can outlaw drug users,
> who is next. Remember that everyone has negative traits, will your trait be
next
> on the list?
That's up to the people who make the laws, who are voted in or out by you
and I.
"Negative trait?" I thought you were pro choice ;) ?
BTW, the ganja users are unfortunately disadvantaged under Singapore law. 10
GeoL
> Looks like Intellectual cowardice to me. In other words, you refuse
> to stand for what you write. I think that sheds an interesting light
> on your contributions here.
It's an ego thing. It's difficult to get people to admit that they've
made a mistake.
GeoL
> Nicotine no. Cannabis, Yes.
Help! Will Paul Cartney be jailed if he visits Singapore?
Operator
visited so many marijuana websites and also followed arguments by druggie, Tinker and to a lesser
extent Stadler & Sundberg. Their arguments are similar to those people who says they can hold
their drinks and never get drunk. Same for those smokers who say they are just social smokers and
can quit anytime anywhere.
Those websites are mostly pro-marijuana and all of them are '.com' which tells you something. The
arguments are very convincing but if you look closely, they are contradictory.
For example:
"marijuana is not addictive" - but they told us it is a drug acting on the CNS.
"marijuana is not carcinogenic" - but the report stated long term usage causes squamous cell
metaplasia on the respiratory lining. Put it simply, it is cancer causing if used for long term.
There are about 1001 reasons why you should use marijuana. Just go through the websites and you
will find that, wow, what am I missing here. This is a cool, cheap (you can even learn to grow it
yourself) and totally harmless fun, so say the websites!
The only thing I agree with the internet about marijuana is that it has certain medicinal use. But
then this is the same as for cocaine, morphine, codeine, pethidine and opium. Do you need it too
when you are healthy?
But I have only 1 reason why I am against marijuana - I have no use for it.
And I have no interest to convince people who want to choose to try marijuana. Go ahead and try
it. It's your life, it's your choice, you bear the consequences.
Operator
J
third party could prove that they did? If it is an issue of law here, then
they would still be guilty since it can be proven that they had taken drugs
before they returned to Singapore.
I think the law is a little inappropriate here. Like the saying goes, "the
laws of the land". People who have drug traces in their urine can be
prevented from entering Sg but not prosecuted for drug consumption
elsewhere. The long arm of the law should not be so long.....
COE wrote in message <80vqar$t8d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Hi all
>
>I can see the original subject getting a bit confused here. If it is
purely
>on narcotics or addiction, there is the alt.politics.drugs or
>http://www.ukcia.org/ for some indepth analysis. Lets instead look at the
>current Singapore Law, which has demolished (unfairly?) two promising
youths'
>future this week, and at least a dozen more each week.
>
>This case is about a couple who consumed cannabis 3 weeks ago in another
>country and caught in Singapore and prosecuted (amazing!) based on
residues.
>To be relevant, two key issues should be addressed:
>
>1) Can one do something entirely legal in a foreign country, but still be
>prosecuted here based on Singapore law - regardless whether one is a
tourist
>or citizen. This is what our short-sighted law makers didn't examine in
>depth when pass them laws like signing checks and wimping how hard it is to
>change them later!
>
>2) If the fear is that drugs, eg. cannabis, can cause hallucinations that
>can endanger others, will not drugs that cause drowsiness similarly
endanger
>lives and come under offence?
>
>I remember a little debate with my company doctor some 3 years ago. It
went
>like this. I was down with a bad flu and went to the clinic for treatment.
>After the usual checks, and while the doc is scribbling his prescription,
he
>asked me one simple question - Do you drive? I said yes, and he went on to
>say that I should not take the medicine since it will cause drowsiness and
>could cause accidents. But I told him that even without taking his
medicine,
>I am ALREADY feeling drowsy from the flu. He gave a shrug and complete his
>prescription.
>
>My question here - Is the doc committing an offence by knowingly allowing
me
>to "drive" (or even operate machinery) and sending me back to work, knowing
>my drowsy condition, (he refused to prescribe medical leave, even though he
>did admit my flu is real bad) with possibility of endangering lives should
my
>job involve operating machinery. Would the doc be prosecuted in court?
>
>There is a parallel in many ways to topic of this thread.
>
>
>
>In article <80tlhp$ikl$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg>,
> "Striding Cloud" <cas...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>>
>> Andrew MacLane <drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:8ysyOMvMD1TShfCEUCMlbpe1mh=R...@4ax.com...
>> > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:55:23 -0800, Tinker
>> <jsx123N...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > - snipped -
>> > >I know what law is, and how we should defend it. But we create laws,
>> > >and should not be their slaves. Change them if its not right.
>> >
>> > Change the law so that some people can get stoned as they wished?
>> >
>> Oooh :)
>> There's no harm in that.
>>
>> Excesive drinking makes a person doubly stoned. There are no laws in
>> Singapore prohibiting someone from drinking excessively so long as he
>> behaves himself in public and/or do not drive.
>>
>> So why can't we say the same for cannabis? I mean .. from the posts
flying
>> around the newsgroup it's a conclusion that cannabis is a "harmless drug"
>> (as quoted by Ken!).
>>
>> I do see where the law is coming from, but the law makes it kinda black &
>> white, without giving grounds for gray. Life isn't only black and white.
In
>> fact, life is gray, and green, and torquoise.
>>
>> Its a pity that these two folks were used as scapegoats to bring the
point
>> across.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Striding Cloud
>>
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
COE
"J" <malu...@tm.net.my> wrote:
> What if they took drugs, but had no evidence of it in their urine,
but a
> third party could prove that they did? If it is an issue of law
here, then
Neither you nor me should be concerned over the enforcement aspect of
drug abuse. These are technical stuff, and the relevant gov agencies
has the technical capability to drug detection.
What does concern me is the aspect of law, and the categorisation of
drugs under the Act. Specifically, the case of the couple who was
caught with cannabis traces, after taking them 3 weeks ago in Australia
shows two important issue of law.
One, why must some living or staying in another country comply with the
rules of Singapore? They have their own laws, and compliance with the
law of the land is adequate. This works like the double-taxation
agreement between countries.
Two, that the couple did not commit any crimes for 3 weeks shows that
the cannabis did not harm their mind, and was able to do things
normally, including taking another holiday in Malaysia, like anybody
else. Here, there is no drug abuse, as i see it. Panadol is also
called a drug, so does Aspirin. If a drug is not dangerous, it should
not be covered in the Act. Other drugs like herion or morphine ARE
dangerous and should be in the Act. Hence, one must be open and view
drugs as evil. Here cannabis is like beer in giving the high, but it
has weak addiction level. In fact, the nicotine in cigarettes is more
addictive than cannabis!
m0bius
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:13:20 +0800, "m0bius" <m0b...@asu.net> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> But my point is, if you made a choice, then be a man and face the consequences
> that your choice might bring, regardless if the law in itself is unfair or not
> in the first place, and NOT whine about how that destroy your life.
Consequences are there and will impinge on people whether they choose
to face them or not. When people do wrong and are caught, they
surrender to justice. That doesnt mean that the justice meted out
should always be harsh.
In this case a little compassion for the youngsters who made an
"unwise" choice would not have altered the message of a strict
anti-drugs stance. Many kids will experiment with drugs no mater WHAT
the law or their parents say. That doesnt necessarily make them "bad"
people, IMHO.
> And there's one part I am particularly concerned about. I believe it has been
> raised by a few others.. that is that the general public maybe ignorant of the
> law and some of the changes made to it, which means that a person might made a
> choice assuming that he hasn't done anything wrong, and ended up being punished.
Yes. That is why a culture which fosters "the spirit of the law" is to
me important as having a strong judicial system. Not everyone (least of
all S'porean kids in a foreign country) can keep up with a change here
and a change there, especially when many are still thinking "Wah! Shiok
I am now in Perth...so I can smoke ganja and take Ecstasy openly
without fear of the CNB "Bladder Cops." [Think again Perth-based
Sporean kids. The coppers have sophisticated mobile drug test gear.
On-the-spot drug checks now only take 2-3 minutes. The last police
minister wanted parliament to allow their use by last X'mas, but was
moved out of his portfolio. The cops have the gear. They dont have
legislation to use it to convict....yet]
For laws to be effective, fair and just, they must be used for their
intended purpose, not just to "make a point." (political or otherwise).
Mercy and compassion is as important as heavy sentencing. It depends on
the gravity and nature of the "crime." In this case I see no crime. All
I see is 2 kids who did silly things and got caught after the fact. A
non-custodial sentence and 6-12 months of community work helping other
young people deal with drugs would have more benefit to the community.
> That is quite a cause for concern for people like me who wanted at all cost to
> avoid getting into trouble with the law and just go my merry way. :-P
If you aint doing anything unlawful, you have no worries.
The best way for not getting trouble with the law is not to draw
attention IF your "merry way" happens to be against the law. These laws
may be administered by people lacking in compassion or
understanding...or they could just be harsh, absolute or used in ways
they werent meant for. (Dont sell books without a health permit or
speak in public without an entertainment license)
Personally I feel the less one has to hide or be untruthful for, the
easier, peaceful and less burdensome life is...but if some feel the
compelling need to do something "naughty" which happens to be unlawful
(like in this case have a joint or three), for goodness sake dont go
around looking like a "walking bust" (red eyes, tripping) especially
when they have to meet cops, customs officers, prospective employers
and future in-laws.
Making an "unwise" choice is one thing. Drawing fire is just plain dumb.
regards
m0bius
Freo, West Oz
--
Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at different
speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing.
-- Clive James
+++++++++++++ ROT13 to email: z0o...@hfn.arg +++++++++++++++++
druggie
then
the government has no business legislating its use. It can legislate harmful associations (such
as drunk driving) but not the thing itself. Pleasure arguing with you.
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 21:03:19 -0800, druggie <dr...@dead.net> wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >the question is, who determines if a purpose is useful or not?
>
> No one can. But you can always try and prove that the purpose is useful.
>
> /\ndre\/\/ /\/\acLane
>
druggie
http://www.lindesmith.org
it has links to a good deal of the knowledge base on the more popular illicit drugs and legislation.
Operator wrote:
> Andrew, we hardly agree on anything but this is one topic we are firmly on the same ground. I have
> visited so many marijuana websites and also followed arguments by druggie, Tinker and to a lesser
> extent Stadler & Sundberg. Their arguments are similar to those people who says they can hold
> their drinks and never get drunk. Same for those smokers who say they are just social smokers and
> can quit anytime anywhere.
> Those websites are mostly pro-marijuana and all of them are '.com' which tells you something. The
> arguments are very convincing but if you look closely, they are contradictory.
> For example:
> "marijuana is not addictive" - but they told us it is a drug acting on the CNS.
>
so is coffee, so is rice and amazingly the lethal dose of marijuana is far higher than the lethal dose
of the other 2. Aspirin kills loads of people each year, that doesn't stop the government from
letting it be sold.
> "marijuana is not carcinogenic" - but the report stated long term usage causes squamous cell
>
You ignored my response so let me repeat it. -
False, the limited research on that effect of cannabis does suggest respiratory decline but not
specifically cancer and this is related to the method of intake, not the substance itself. In
fact, one study (the only study of pot as a cancer agent) showed a significant decrease in tumor
development in the THC group vs. the control group. It is smoking that leads to ill health and
combustion is not the only means of taking cannabis. One can eat it, drink it a tea, or vaporise
the THC and avoid most negative health effects.
One other thing, the fact sheet you added was done in 1993, well before the recent uptick in
cannabinoid receptor research. The science base has expanded since that sheet was written.
>
> There are about 1001 reasons why you should use marijuana. Just go through the websites and you
> will find that, wow, what am I missing here. This is a cool, cheap (you can even learn to grow it
> yourself) and totally harmless fun, so say the websites!
>
>
I am not advocating pot, I am advocating choice. I am saying that the laws enacted to "save" the
people from this terrible substance do far more harm to the population than the substance itself. I
am saying that there are far more lethal substances which are readily and legally available such as
coffee or aspirin.
> But I have only 1 reason why I am against marijuana - I have no use for it.
Thus it should be illegal and people's lives should be ruined?
>
> And I have no interest to convince people who want to choose to try marijuana. Go ahead and try
> it. It's your life, it's your choice, you bear the consequences.
>
actually, you cannot see the argument but someday it will hit you and yours if not overturned. it
won't stop with drugs, the state will take this precedent and use it to start testing for health issue
and other things.
Remember what David Hume said: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
>
druggie
has uses other than getting drunk.
Saravana Ram wrote:
> I caught Andrew MacLane <drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> saying
> this on jaring.general:
>
> >1) Alchohol is consumed for different purposes other than getting stoned.
>
> Elaborate.
>
> Ram.
> G! d- s:++ a--- C++(++++) L+++/S P+ E---- W+ N++ o? K- W+++ O--
> M PS++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5 X+++ R- tv b++ DI++++ D++ G e-- h! r-- y
--
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.
David Hume
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made
to see Paradise as Hell; and also the other way around, to consider
the most wretched sort of life as Paradise.
Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf
If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is
obligated to do so.
Thomas Jefferson
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth
can stand by itself.
Thomas Jefferson
druggie
sake that you are never on the receiving end of "subjective justice".
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 16:06:45 GMT, R...@POP.Jaring.nospam.My (Saravana Ram) wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >>But again, the reason why Hitler, Milosevic and the likes "see" racial issues
> >>differently maybe because they are stoned. Oh now, that I will agree.
> >This is unfair of you.
>
> Fairness, is subjective.
>
> /\ndre\/\/ /\/\acLane
>
> ---
> " The objective of war is not to die for your country but to make the
> other bastard die for his."
> - General George S. Patton
--
druggie
Nobody is trying to convince you to try it, just to entertain the idea that it doesn't justify
incarceration.
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 16:12:26 GMT, R...@POP.Jaring.nospam.My (Saravana Ram) wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >>1) What is the percentage of inventors, musicians or what not are stoners as
> >>compared to those who are never under some hallucination effect when equally
> >>creative?
> >This is completely offtangent, and even druggie is somewhat
> >responsible for that. The question should be what is so wrong with
> >pot-heads that pot should be illegal? thats all.
>
> So stoning is right?
>
> Anyway, let me go through a summary of events here:
>
> 1) It is _ MY _ (and solely mine) opinion that getting stoned is unproductive.
> and that there is nothing good coming from getting stoned.
>
> 2) The counter-argument was that getting stoned helps some people become
> creative. Some names were cited.
>
> 3) I disagree with that opinion, citing that it could be psychological since
> some people can't perform physically well in their army fitness test without
> smoking a cigarette.
>
> 4) Someone mentioned that just because I don't try / have never tried it, and
> tat I don't need it doesn't mean that it isn't true.
>
> 5) I reiterated that this is hardly acceptable because just because someone
> claims that it's helpful to him isn't an acceptable and convincing reason.
> (OTOH, while I don't find that a reason, the person is still free to believe in
> what he wants to believe since I cannot NEGATE the experience he has.) And the
> result was me making the statement above, which you considered to be offtangent.
>
> So, if you want to refire the old furnace again, by all means do so, I will not
> "re-debate" points or "re-argue" them again.
Tinker
admitted. What he said is that they are "not productive", which is
also not illegal. On basis of these two points, the couple did not do
anything illegal. Upon return from Australia, and for the next 3
weeks, they did not do anything wrong or harmful, and was able to take
another holiday in Malaysia, just like everyone else. This shows that
the cannabis did not have any material impact on their minds.
If one classify cannabis as a dangerous drug, nicotine is even more
addictive, and betel nuts too. These should be outlawed. beer ad
liquor joints should be closed too. Lets make Singapore, Iran-style!
This is my last post on this thread. I see some people here getting
desperate (perhaps paranoid), defending something that they no longer
hold any ground.
cheers!
>In article <383fc87c...@news.jaring.my>, R...@POP.Jaring.nospam.My
>(Saravana Ram) wrote:
> I caught Andrew MacLane <drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com>
> saying
> this on jaring.general:
> >I have never mentioned anything about getting stoned being
> harmful, nor
> >mentioned anything about it dulling the brain. What I have said
> is that there is
> >no reason to get stoned, and that it is NOT productive to get
> stoned.
> I agree with this Andrew. But I think it isn't enough to make it an
> illegal activity.
> Ram.
> G! d- s:++ a--- C++(++++) L+++/S P+ E---- W+ N++ o? K- W+++ O--
> M PS++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5 X+++ R- tv b++ DI++++ D++ G e-- h! r-- y
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Tinker
While at it, consider banning coffee and tea - they contain caffein!
This topic is of secondary interest to me. Of primary concern is the
way laws are enacted in Singapore. They are not only high handed, some
laws were enacted without considering the technicalities in depth, and
the implications to society or Singapore's role as part of world
community. I would like to see our legislative system improved, and
the courts giving more thought to the spirit and principles of Justice,
not just by the book. We are all part of the family, we are not
enemies to each other. The law makers and law enforcers are also part
of the same family. Why not make life better for all? I always
believe the law is to serve the people, not working against us.
really
> >responsible for that. The question should be what is so wrong with
> >pot-heads that pot should be illegal? thats all.
>
> "zhui zhen" style, resulting in a car slamming into the back of
> another. Girls dashing pass them, slipped and fell and broke their
> high heels. It would be better for them to handcuff themselves to a
> pole or post b4 getting high,
Alcohol has the same effect, if abused.
There was a time where boat quay was filled with underage drinkers (saw
report from TNP) and that more police patrol was needed to curb the
increasing amount of violence (teenage gangs). I recall it was back in 1996.
I dont go there as often during and after that period.
really
> >
> >There was a time where boat quay was filled with underage drinkers (saw
> >report from TNP) and that more police patrol was needed to curb the
> >increasing amount of violence (teenage gangs). I recall it was back in
1996.
> >I dont go there as often during and after that period.
>
> analyser and you got scared and pee in your pants.
I dont drink and drive, so no worries. I'm above legal consumption age too,
back in '96. ;P
Your pee if they
> also want, you sure kena left or right.... you loose both ways....
> Fright can also induce pot of urine....
I dont do drugs either.
Last post on this thread.
Cheers,
-really
Ken!!!
makes for really really scary reading.... and i do not mean the
druggos... the people who wage this war are not waging it to clear the
streets of drugs.. they are doing this for money, power and
influence... drugs are a minor irritation which needs to be
periodically addressed...
the public? sell them lies, loads of lies... the dangers of THC is one
of them...
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:38:19 +0800, "m0bius" <m0b...@asu.net> wrote:
>What other argument is there, really? Singapore is anti-drugs and makes that
>very clear. The VAST majority of people support that, and our tough laws are
>respected by people all over the world.
*************************************
delete SPAMMERSDIE for correspondence
ICQ:42366740
*************************************
Ken!!!
read up on this... and don't believe the lies by governments..
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:05:28 +0800, Andrew MacLane
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
>>>The justifications for using soft drugs is all nonsense. Narcotics are just what they are -
>>>narcotics.
>
>For once I agree with Operator.
Ken!!!
outlaw life?
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 03:27:34 +1100, Francis Lee <her...@home.com>
wrote:
>I have seen "pot-heads" tugging women shirts, wonder onto the road
>"zhui zhen" style, resulting in a car slamming into the back of
>another. Girls dashing pass them, slipped and fell and broke their
>high heels. It would be better for them to handcuff themselves to a
>pole or post b4 getting high,
*************************************
Ken!!!
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 05:07:57 +0800, Operator <co...@mindef.gov.uk>
wrote:
>I would also support prohibitions. Can you tell me what are the beneficial effects of smoking
>and getting drunk on alcohol. If you can't, then you're a hypocrite. If I am kind enough, I may
>let you know the answers.
*************************************
Ken!!!
to be told to bugger off... and george bush jnr too... he was
freebasing according to reports...
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:07:45 +0800, GeoL <Ge...@ter.Than.U> wrote:
>Help! Will Paul Cartney be jailed if he visits Singapore?
*************************************
Ken!!!
RESPONSIBLE ADULT and incarcerates you for doing NOTHING wrong to
other people as totally unjust...
we need fewer stupid laws..
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 01:17:40 +0800, Andrew MacLane
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
>But I am saying that I don't see a need for the law to be gone just to let
>people get stoned, which IMO, is unproductive and have no positive effects.
Ken!!!
you wanna talk about abuse?
go to boat quay and see the people ABUSING alcohol...
what you wanna do? go there and berate all of them?
the lies being spread about the herb results in this kind of hatred...
BTW, people abuse panadol and aspirin... what you gonna do? ban them?
cane the abusers? incarcerate them?
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 06:56:51 +0800, Rick <ric...@pacific.net.sg>
wrote:
> Ya ya, and morphine is also given to cancer patients..........blah blah
>blah. Where were you when God was giving out brains??? We are talking about
>drugs abuse here, not the value of it in terms of medical science. A lot of
>medicines are opiate base, but when taken without or not according to
>prescription, it's abuse.
Ken!!!
THC is not an opiate... bottom line...
heck! i can come up with figures like that too... go to hardcore
druggos and ask them which one of them did hemp and i'd get 50 to 65%
too...
get this straight... you have to smoke about a bushel of high grade
weed in an hour before you can OD on THC... and before that happens,
nicotine and carbon monoxide will kill you... which WILL happen with
tobacco too..
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:07:07 +0800, Operator <co...@mindef.gov.uk>
wrote:
>Is that right?
>Cannabis contains a type of opiate which is in the same class as morphine and
>cocaine. The pharmacological action on the central nervous system is devastating
>over a long period of time.
>Several studies have also indicated that soft drug users who actually graduated
>to hard drugs ranges from 50% to 65%.
Ken!!!
these people did their thing over there.. not much of a crime over
there... and when they are back here, they get punished...
does that mean that i score and get oral sex in another country, i can
get arrested for that in singapore? coz it's supposedly against the
law... see the danger in this kinda laws?
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:09:33 GMT, piper...@interport.net (piper)
wrote:
>I agree with you, Vishnu. For the same reason, I had no sympathy for
>that American teenaged punk who got caned for vandalizing cars in
>Singapore. If you're in Singapore, don't f***ing vandalize cars. And
>by the way, from what I remember, most Americans favored the
>Singaporean position on caning at the time. I didn't, but I did
>respect their consistency in applying their laws equitably.
Ken!!!
bunch of friends who just finished the exams...
what's your problem?
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:04:42 +0800, Andrew MacLane
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
>I have been the "moron" at boat quay, Ken.
>
>And I think I have probably empty a good one carton of beer before that
>happened, all in the name of fun for a friend who's getting marrid the next day.
>
>So what's your problem?
Ken!!!
and i believe governments are there FOR the people and countries
thrive in spite of governments, not because of them...
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 22:49:04 +0800, Andrew MacLane
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
>I would choose to believe the government.
>
>At least, I am quite sure believing them will ensure that I have a proper roof
>over my head and a job to feed myself. Not to mention that it ask for pretty
>little in return.
>
>OTOH, I am not so confident that this will be so if I choose to believe
>otherwise.
Saravana Ram
>he was defending the government position on cannabis by saying that alcohol
>has uses other than getting drunk.
I want him to tell me the different purposes of alcohol.
>> >1) Alchohol is consumed for different purposes other than getting stoned.
>> Elaborate.
Ram.
druggie
effectively cowed into believing anything that hits the papers in self defense.
In essence, Singapore has become a country where one either sees the world through
government issued glasses or does not eat.
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 22:25:27 +0800, Ken!!! <na...@pacific.SPAMMERSDIE.net.sg>
> wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >hemp is NOT a narcotic... never was one...
> >read up on this... and don't believe the lies by governments..
>
> I would choose to believe the government.
>
> At least, I am quite sure believing them will ensure that I have a proper roof
> over my head and a job to feed myself. Not to mention that it ask for pretty
> little in return.
>
> OTOH, I am not so confident that this will be so if I choose to believe
> otherwise.
>
> /\ndre\/\/ /\/\acLane
>
> ---
> " And where have all the soldiers gone, long time passing?
> Where have all the soldiers gone, a long time ago?
> Where have all the soldiers gone?
> Gone to graveyards, every one!
> When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn? "
>
> - Excerpts from the song "Where Have All The Flowers Gone"
druggie
> of the people as a necessary means to _ MAINTAIN _ public order.
>
>
> Anyway. the Law is needed for the greater benefit of the other people.
>
Do you feel that the 2 people in question were a threat to anyone? Did they violate the public
order in Singapore when they got high in Perth? How have you benefitted from their incarceration?
druggie
many times have you smoked pot such that you can comment on the mental state of those engaging in
that activity. SEMI-CONCIOUS indeed.
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 15:42:48 GMT, R...@POP.Jaring.nospam.My (Saravana Ram) wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >>If you have actually objectively compared, you will notice that getting sucked
> >>into a game like Quake III is a side-effect that arises from someone's wish to
> >>find some fun, and that clearly does not _ objectively compare _ to someone
> >>_ DELIBERATELY _ getting himself stoned.
> >Is not getting stoned a deliberate act of finding fun, too?
>
> Fun when you are _ SEMI - CONSCIOUS _?
>
> Oh sure. I don't recall having any fun when I get stoned from drinking..
>
> /\ndre\/\/ /\/\acLane
>
> ---
> " The objective of war is not to die for your country but to make the
> other bastard die for his."
> - General George S. Patton
--
druggie
>
>
What threat do you perceive comes from deliberate stoning?
>
> >How have you benefitted from their incarceration?
>
> Kill the Chicken to Warn the Monkey.
>
>
saw an article in Saturday's ST which said that the CNB does 1000's or raids per year, how many
chickens have to die before we realize that the monkeys are the chickens and nobody is left to be
killed or learn.
druggie
would rather believe the gov't because they put a roof over your head.
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 08:03:05 -0800, druggie <dr...@dead.net> wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >This post says it all. Rather than searching for truth, the population has been
> >effectively cowed into believing anything that hits the papers in self defense.
> >In essence, Singapore has become a country where one either sees the world through
> >government issued glasses or does not eat.
>
> Wow.. laying it think aren't you?
>
> I didn't see how that represent that population. In fact, I was under the
> impression, from the countless arguments against mine, that the people of this
> nation are a truth searching lot, and they aren't cowed into believing anything
> that hits the papers.
>
> /\ndre\/\/ /\/\acLane
>
> ---
> " The objective of war is not to die for your country but to make the
> other bastard die for his."
> - General George S. Patton
--
Yap Yok Foo
20th November 1999
MALAYSIA: Chinese avoid upsetting Mahathir
By Jonathan Birchall in Penang
Madame Chong Eng of Malaysia's opposition Democratic Action party
(DAP) has led a comparatively lonely political existence for the past
four years, sitting as the sole opposition member in the assembly in
the state of Penang, surrounded by supporters of the ruling Barisan
Nasional coalition of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.
"I did propose three motions," she explained at the party's
headquarters in the narrow, historic streets of the state capital,
Georgetown. "But there was no one to second them."
This weekend, as Malaysia embarks on its eight-day official election
campaign before polls on November 29, the DAP is setting out to
improve its position both in Penang and across Malaysia, hoping to
capitalise on the damage done to the ruling coalition by the storm
over the sacking and imprisonment of Dr Mahathir's deputy, Anwar
Ibrahim.
But the DAP's message to its traditional support base among Malaysia's
ethnic Chinese is a decidedly circumspect one: vote not for a new
government, but for a stronger opposition.
"There's no doubt that the people in Penang and throughout the country
want a change," said an official at yesterday's launch of the DAP's
manifesto in Georgetown. "This time around the issues we have, both
national and local, are certainly ones which will embolden the people
in Penang to vote for an effective opposition."
The cautious approach reflects the uncertainties that surround the
likely voting preferences of the ethnic Chinese. The community makes
up roughly one third of the Malaysian population but exerts a far
greater influence on the country's economy; predominantly Chinese,
Penang is the country's second business and commercial centre after
the capital.
But relations between the two communities remain coloured by racial
tensions, and the memory of violent sectarian riots 30 years ago.
Chinese votes are likely to be given greater political weight in the
forthcoming poll by the treatment of Mr Anwar, which has divided the
Malay community to an as-yet-unknown extent. Dr Mahathir has conceded
his supporters may struggle to maintain the majority of two-thirds or
more in parliament held by the Barisan Nasional since independence in
1957.
But while some members of the economically influential Chinese
community may be unhappy with Dr Mahathir's coalition, they may not
necessarily be interested in disturbing the political status quo.
"I will vote for the DAP. Not because I want them to be the
government. But because I want them to be sitting there and making a
noise," explained one of Georgetown's Chinese businessmen.
Recent electoral history presents some evidence of inherent caution.
In 1990 polls the DAP almost took control of the Penang state
legislature; this was followed by a catastrophic collapse of support
in 1995, with Madame Chong Eng as the sole survivor.
"The people do not want to have the problems which come with an
opposition government at state level," said Abdul Malik Kassim, an
opposition activist with the pro-Anwar Keadilan party, which has
formed a unified alliance with the DAP and with the Islamic, mainly
Malay, PAS party.
Government ministers, and the strongly pro-government media, have
responded to the new opposition alliance by highlighting differences
between PAS - which has dropped its demand for an Islamic state in the
joint opposition manifesto - and the strongly secular DAP.
Dr Mahathir has also repeatedly suggested that opposition supporters
may try to provoke violence during or after the polls, in what the
opposition says is an attempt to intimidate voters into staying with
the status quo.
www.ft.com
**************From Uncle Yap**************
The Malaysian News & Discussion Group
=====================================
Read or subscribe to this group at http://www.eGroups.com/list/beritamalaysia/
To subscribe by e-mail, send e-mail to
beritamalays...@egroups.com
To unsubscribe by e-mail, send e-mail to
beritamalaysi...@egroups.com
Just The Malaysian News
=======================
To subscribe:just send blank e-mail to bmalaysia...@onelist.com
To unsubscribe: bmalaysia-...@onelist.com
Once registered and subscribed, you will get the daily articles about
Malaysia delivered to your e-mail box
Yap Yok Foo
CHINA: Malaysian wrangle kicks off Zhu's tour
By Jonathan Birchall in Kuala Lumpur
Zhu Rongji, China's prime minister, arrives in Malaysia today at the
start of a two-day official visit marking the start of a South-east
Asian tour that will also take him to the Philippines and Vietnam. In
the Philippines, Mr Zhu will also attend next weekend's informal
summit meeting of the 10 members of the Association of South-east
Asian Nations, Asean.
In Malaysia, Mr Zhu arrives in the middle of the intense political
campaign being waged ahead of next Monday's general elections. The
opposition Democratic Action Party, which draws the majority of its
support from Malaysia's ethnic Chinese community, has already accused
Mahathir Mohamad, prime minister, of timing the elections with the
visit in mind, in a bid to win support from ethnic Chinese voters who
make up roughly a third of the Malaysian electorate.
Government ministers have pointed out that Mr Zhu's trip to Kuala
Lumpur follows an official visit to China made by Dr Mahathir in
September. They also say the visit was scheduled long before the date
of the poll was known. However, the presence of an important regional
leader in Malaysia during the campaign is unlikely to do Dr Mahathir's
electoral chances any harm, particularly among Chinese community
members who retain close business links with the mainland.
During the visit, Mr Zhu is expected to announce an increase in the
amount of Malaysian palm oil China will import in the current fiscal
year, above Beijing's quota levels of 1m tonnes.
Western diplomats say they also expect the two sides to discuss the
forthcoming Asean meeting in Manila, and a new diplomatic initiative
backed by the Philippines calling for a code of conduct to ease
tensions over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Four Asean
members - Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Brunei - have
conflicting territorial claims to tiny islands and reefs in the
Spratlys, while China and Taiwan claim sovereignty over the entire
area. All the claimants except Brunei maintain a military presence in
the islands.
On Saturday in Manila, the Philippines' foreign minister, Domingo
Siazon, said a proposed code of conduct would call for the peaceful
settlement of all disputes, while requiring claimants to refrain from
building new structures in the area or seeking to expand the territory
they already occupy.
The initiative follows a marked increase in tension in the Spratlys
this year between the Philippines, Vietnam and China. Vietnam is
arguing that the code of conduct should also include the more
northerly Paracel Islands, which were seized from Vietnam by China in
1974.
China has in the past resisted attempts to create a multilateral
framework for resolving disputes in the South China Sea, insisting
instead on bilateral negotiations in which it would wield a
significantly stronger hand than its smaller neighbours. Malaysia has
said it supports a code of conduct, but has also endorsed China's
stance on bilateral negotiations.
Ken!!!
coz of my ignorance...
'sides, zaire and all that, their military has gone berserk... there
is only so much a bunch of impoverished and illiterate people can do
in the face of guns, helicopter gunships and drought...
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:10:42 +0800, Andrew MacLane
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
>>but i choose the truth, damn the consequences...
>
>Hope you will be man enough to face the consequences then.
>
>>and i believe governments are there FOR the people and countries
>>thrive in spite of governments, not because of them...
>
>I clearly don't see the people of Zaire, Somalia and Afghanistan thriving.
GeoL
> I clearly don't see the people of Zaire, Somalia and Afghanistan thriving.
And you see that Suzhou is a great success? The success of singapore
must be attributed to BOTH the people and the government.
Ken!!!
much better than abject ignorance, or worse, fighting tooth and nail
to stay ignorant and being proud of it...
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:41:14 +0800, Andrew MacLane
<drew...@KICKTHESPAMMERSmy-deja.com> wrote:
>And what makes you think you _ REALLY _ knows?
>
>After all, you may only know what is on the surface, but not the whole truth.
Sim/\Sar
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:50:46 +0800, GeoL <Ge...@ter.Than.U> wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >And you see that Suzhou is a great success? The success of singapore
> >must be attributed to BOTH the people and the government.
>
> I don't recall ever talking about Suzhou. However, I am quite sure you won't
> hesitate to talk about the ass, when the topic is about the head.
>
> /\ndre\/\/ /\/\acLane
Cannot run away from the ass thing eh? Of course, that's
your speciality area.
Sim/\Sar
Francis Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:50:46 +0800, GeoL <Ge...@ter.Than.U> wrote:
>
> >Andrew MacLane wrote:
> >
> >> I clearly don't see the people of Zaire, Somalia and Afghanistan thriving.
> >
> >And you see that Suzhou is a great success? The success of singapore
> >must be attributed to BOTH the people and the government.
>
> Suzhou - meaning you lose the state... you are so ignorant...
Wah! Zhian Chua Zi.!