General Debate 1 July 2009
Halfway through the year!
1 Total TweetBacks: (Tweet this post)
Tags: General DebateGeneral Debate 1 July 2009
142 Responses to “General Debate 1 July 2009”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:21 am
Miracle of the 5 year old found from the downed airliner. Amazing. What are the odds?
July 1st, 2009 at 8:36 am
this should make you very very nervous..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/warning-britain-faces-new-recession/
(here comes ‘the double-dip’..!
..and no..it isn’t an icecream..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 8:39 am
Just three days left for Sheryl the communicator to pull the plug on the referendumb and save the taxpayer $6 million.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:40 am
..shouldnt you be on your way to work flu..oh thats right , your a dole bludger…
July 1st, 2009 at 8:41 am
Is it too late for her to change the question? This would mean more:
Would good parents be better parents if they learnt to smack less?
July 1st, 2009 at 8:45 am
As much as I think the whole debate is rubbish, I really don’t think it is fair to put all the burden on one woman here…
July 1st, 2009 at 8:47 am
Why the hell should the people not have a voice toad. Or do you only support the voice of the people in your head?
Engough people signed up for referendum so they damn well get one. You can take the price tag OFF my democracy thanks.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:47 am
Under the law she as proposer is no the only person who has the power to put an end to this farce.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:48 am
Obama’s Elf:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_B5UrI7nAI
July 1st, 2009 at 8:48 am
N1tco – yeah, I agree with that.
I’m sure it seemed like a worthy idea at the time, it will be tough on her watching it unraveling.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:49 am
Is it too late to add another question to the referendum?
“Should communist jizz stains fuck off with their meddling in peoples lives?”
July 1st, 2009 at 9:04 am
Murray said: Why the hell should the people not have a voice toad.
If the referendum had a question that made sense, I would agree with you. Tell me, how is someone who doesn’t think smacking is part of good parental corrrection but doesn’t think it should be a criminal offence (which is most people, I suspect) meant to vote.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:06 am
Starboard – careful now, phil gets upset when being called a dole bludger, he is a DPB beneficiary of many years standing. I think that is code for Upsize and fries with dole bludging or Postrgrad Diploma in Beneficiarism.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:11 am
Another Labour ‘own goal’. Labour asked why John Key went first class to APEC last November. It was Helen Clark’s staff who had arranged the booking and it seems she normally travelled first class. John is quite happy to fly business class and expect his ministers to do likewise.
It is getting to the stage where National members need not ask patsy questions – it is easier to knock a six off opposition MPs’ questions.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:12 am
he is a DPB beneficiary of many years standing.
And so good at it!!
And points, aka full stops.
What a boring, meaningless, vacuous life.
Just a product of the System. Labour’s system of creating a captive voter base.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:13 am
toad – get together the appropriate amount of signatures and have your own referendum. The question is simple. The answer is either yes or no.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:13 am
“..# starboard (135) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 8:40 am
..shouldnt you be on your way to work flu..oh thats right , your a dole bludger…”
..and you have a nice day..eh ..?
..i hope the weather there is good for you..
..it’s a beautiful sunny day here in akkers..(the paris of the north..)
(puzzled..?..this 8.46 am from today..in june 30 th thread will explain all..eh..?
..you have one month..!)
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/06/general_debate_30_june_2009.html#comments
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 9:20 am
I think the only honest answer I can give is Yes and No. That should count.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:32 am
I had to check the date today. After watching Breakfast today where one of our esteemed academics advancied the proposition that parents should have one vote for themselves and one vote for each child under 18 I thought we were back on April 1. Just think, Macsyna King would have had 4 votes
July 1st, 2009 at 9:33 am
toad said “Just three days left for Sheryl the communicator to pull the plug on the referendumb and save the taxpayer $6 million.”
Surely toad, you’re not sucked in by that argument? Helen Clark could have held the referendum concurrent to the 2008 General Election at minimal cost to the taxpayer. You’re shooting the messenger.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:34 am
Toad.
6 million would have been saved if the referendum was part of the general election, but one woman (Helen Clark) put the kybosh on that.
Mind you, If labour had paid what NZ rail was actually worth, we could have used the money saved to fund 60 referendums.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:36 am
I think we all know who to blame for the referendum toad. We all know why Bradford isn’t your co-leader.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:01 am
RightNow said: I think we all know who to blame for the referendum toad. We all know why Bradford isn’t your co-leader.
But nice Mr Key got the Nats to support her Bill and says the current law is working well. Maybe the Green membership think she’s too close to him.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:16 am
this should interest the stats-dudes..
..and righties should be ‘engaged..by the conclusions reached..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/true-or-false-us-economic-stats-lie-social-security-payments-are-just-one-benefit-adjusted-each-year-for-increases-in-the-cost-of-living-if-the-figures-hadn%e2%80%99t-been-corrupted-cheques-might-be-c/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 10:23 am
A fascinating case between the US and Swiss based UBS.
The US Govt is demanding that UBS release account information relating to 52,000 US citizens. Assuming, these accounts are actively used to evade US tax.
The US say that UBS are breaking US tax law, while UBS are saying that releasing the information will break Swiss laws.
I want the info released, there will be some big US names in that list.
I wonder, if little NZ could wield it’s might to get the information regarding nz taxpayers. I bet there will be quite a few.
If the US wins, then maybe NZ could get a look-in on the tails of the US. That would be just awesome!!!
Although, i think it is stupid that the US demand US citizens to pay US income tax even if they don’t live in the US. That is just pathetic.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am
It is working “well” … because it does allow smacking. The only difference in what is permitted between the current law and the previous law is that smacking “for the purposes of correction” is illegal.
Anything else is subject to the EXACT same standard of reasonable force that existed before. So that defense of “reasonable force” can be applied to the use of a riding crop or a cricket bat or a tire-iron with absolutely the same likelihood of success as before. All you have to do is claim you were trying to prevent disruptive behavior instead of trying to teach the child something.
…and the police decide whether you go to court.
If there is a significant difference I can’t see it. Nor does the referendum do anything to help the situation.
Greens CAN vote “no” on the referendum and some will. It wasn’t a Green Party initiative.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 10:30 am
Wreck1080
The first $80k (US) is free of tax.
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 10:34 am
Also the rules are such that most countries have bilateral tax agreements to keep double taxation from being a problem, and most of the people being discussed DO live in the USA. They just have swiss accounts, historically a good way to hide money. It will affect some citizens abroad. Not many.
I do my banking here, earn my money here, file a nugatory tax return because the exchange rate means that I took a salary cut of nigh on 40% for the privilege of coming to NZ.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 10:40 am
here is a useful link on the swiss/american tax issue..referred to by wreck..
(ahem..i covered it the other day..
..dare i say it..?..’whoar..always first..!..’..)
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/swiss-banks-dump-us-clients-as-taxman-closes-in/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 10:44 am
“toad – get together the appropriate amount of signatures and have your own referendum”
The interesting thing about that Brian is I’m told more people signed the referendum than voted for the Greens in the 2008 election
July 1st, 2009 at 10:54 am
“The interesting thing about that Brian is I’m told more people signed the referendum than voted for the Greens in the 2008 election”
According to the figures four times more people have mental illness in New Zealand than voted Green in 2008. Makes you realise that they are not getting all of their potential vote.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:00 am
I think that voter pool was split with NZ First and the ALCP though big cheese.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:01 am
“Halfway through the year!”
Why so cheerful? All July 1 means to me is that the Govt has added another 2.8% (at least) to my drinks bill. Thanks guys. No really, thanks a bunch…
July 1st, 2009 at 11:01 am
“Just three days left for Sheryl the communicator to pull the plug on the referendumb and save the taxpayer $6 million.”
Witness the high level of panic sweeping through the watermelons as they face the horrendous prospect of the people getting what they want.
Do these wankers REALLY think they know what is right for us?
July 1st, 2009 at 11:05 am
Phil’s link has a point. The stats being used in the USA have been altered in many and vile ways. The real data on unemployment, GDP and the rest is massively worse in the US, than the headline numbers indicate. Moreover, the economy there is not really recovering. Goldman-Sachs is doing OK, and the bailout has kept the banks healthy… but the population as a whole is sweating blood.
Watch the housing… KEEP watching the housing very closely. I expect the second dip to happen between September and November of this year.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/175-california-hotels-in-default.html
http://railfax.transmatch.com/
The government of NZ isn’t in the same league for dishonest bookkeeping.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/decade-of-lost-jobs.html
http://www.shadowstats.com/
What should happen here though… Capital Gains or Land Tax or Ring-fencing the LAQC to discourage speculation in housing and some regulatory support and tax advantages to people making productive rather than passive investments and businesses, that isn’t happening. Even if Cap-Gains were offset by income tax reductions to make it all revenue neutral it is purely not happening.
So we have house prices still at least 20% higher than justified by REAL supply-demand, supported by moneylenders in Oz. That means that the extra mortgage interest that we are paying is basically an indirect taxpayer subsidy of those banks. Which is why they were so EAGER to lend us all the money we would take to bid house prices up. Because for a lot of people playing “landlord” the interest paid is tax deductible through the LAQC.
Better would be to change the currency to be based on something real. Not necessarily the shiny yellow stuff. A few KWH of electrical work would be good. Abandon the Chicago school, embrace the Austrians and be free.
http://mises.org/story/3522
Change THIS and the government stops having quite the freedom to run inflationary policies or spend more than it can actually earn. The economy stabilizes. The banker’s hand in your back pocket, gets broken off at the wrist. That isn’t of course ALL that will happen, but it alters the equation to favor US instead of people in other countries.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 11:51 am
DPF – I think your spam filters ate a post of mine. All I can think of is that it contained too many links. If there is some guidance as to what the limits are, I would appreciate it.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 11:51 am
Nookin Id go along with parents getting a vote fro their children PROVIDED teh parents past an IQ test and apolitical knowledge test that I set them
Otherwise we have the dumb and the uninformed deciding who will govern
Ohhh I forgot we have that as well AND the same problem with those who seek to govern
July 1st, 2009 at 11:54 am
Four Green Bills coming up in Member’s Day today…
Must be because the Green MPs work so hard they get so many Member’s Bills drawn.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:58 am
Four Green Bills and four crushing defeats.
Still think it was a good idea to throw your lot in with Labour Toad?
July 1st, 2009 at 11:58 am
Phil has a point about the economy.. and the statistics.
http://railfax.transmatch.com/
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/decade-of-lost-jobs.html
http://www.shadowstats.com/
We are being lied to, systematically and with malice aforethought, by the minions of the banking sector.
Most recently Goldman-Sachs-The-Planet managed to get THIS through…
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/nyse-halts-transparency-feels-goldman.html
and their historical control of the economy is not exactly the stuff that inspires confidence in their actual commitment to free or fair trade.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16763183/TaibbiGoldmanSachs
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
BB
Please provide a reason WHY the medical marijuana bill should be defeated. There isn’t any I can think of, and I am looking forward to your defense of the indefensible.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Clearly it is the number of links. There appears to be an upper limit.
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Interesting paralells between the medical marijuana argument and the smacking thing.
If you have glaucoma and use a bit of weed for the pain then I dare say the police wouldn’t bother you but it would still be illegal.
Smack your kid and (according to the Greens) the cops wont bother you but it would still be illegal.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Also BB, since I know you DO hang out on the Greens Frogblog site (if only to annoy the inhabitants of the swamp) it is also pretty clear that you know that there isn’t a lot of panic there…. nor any real uniformity of opinion.
Try to portray things as they actually are and perhaps we can find things we agree on.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Toad, those bills are all the sort of bills voters would actually associate with the green party (as opposed to being social engineering policy). Good luck with them, especially the medicinal marijuana bill. While I don’t believe it is appropriate to decriminalise it for general use due to the correlation with mental illness, I believe it has valid uses and can be far more effective with lesser side effects than many of the drugs promoted by big pharmaceutical companies.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:31 pm
bjchip, please don’t encourage that fool. most of us see the dots and instantly skip to the next post. If you lead him on he’ll get all excited and litter the blog with more punctuation crimes. Ignore him and he can get back to being super-stoner-dad
July 1st, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Actually…
They come down on you for the Mary Jane. The law doesn’t recognize medical use at all, it recognizes “CLASS-C DRUG – BAD” and the police do not have a lot of discretion if the amount appears large but a medical user will likely consume more than a recreational user.
http://www.norml.org.nz/article537.html
We have a lot of people in prison behind the Cannabis law, where we capitulated to the US DEA in 1975 and never looked back. Maybe we should. Ask the Cato institute.
This is very different from the smacking legislation, which is actually a meaningless change with a widely publicized false front. The cops really won’t bother you, and they have a very strong legal discretion to not bother you.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Hmmm.. both posts are cleared now. Which is the equivalent of a double post. For which I apologize to the board.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
If you look closer at the stats on the correlation with mental illness you’ll find that the issue is not clear cut and there is apparently a fairly clear genetic predisposition that goes with it.
http://www.norml.org.nz/article539.html
=== reprises a New Scientist story.
I went to Uni in the late 60′s and early 70′s (yup, that old), and pretty much everyone in the dorm lit up and inhaled deeply. They went on to become MDs and Lawyers and Engineers… and none the worse for wear.
I think personally, that an age limit and some additional information (a simple test for the genetic vulnerability would be a very good thing) would suffice. I hate seeing kids lighting up as young as they do. I hate worse the effects of having pushers and gangs controlling supply and quality and benefiting from the money flow as THEY do. I hate the increased crime that indirectly funds the dealers. I hate the increased taxes to fund the jails to fight the crime.
Green policy is “harm minimization” not open-slather.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Bjchip posted at 12.01: “…Please provide a reason WHY the medical marijuana bill should be defeated.”
1. Smoking kills. Right? That’s what your PC mates have been pushing down the public’s throats to the stage CHristchurch is talking of banning smoking outside in public parks.
2. Smoking stuffs your lungs.
3. All the Greens would go onto prescriptions with mysterious ailments. They would want the State to pay for the dope.
4. Bongs pong.
5. Ill people on marijuana would be a danger on the roads.
6. Fairness – ill cigarette smokers (and I’m not thinking of those with lung cancer or emphysema) are not allowed to puff.
7. We don’t want Green folk dancing and Buddhist “umming and ooming” chants annoying other hospital patients.
8. Smoking marijuana tends to stuff up your sense of time while you are high. We can’t have marijuana creating havoc for medical appointments.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:13 pm
An additional reason why the medical marijuana bill should be defeated….
Just look at what some substance (probably marijuana) has done to the bothersome troller Philu.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:26 pm
jack said..
“..1. Smoking kills. Right? That’s what your PC mates have been pushing down the public’s throats to the stage CHristchurch is talking of banning smoking outside in public parks..”
i don’t have the actual link..(but cd find it at a push..(on whoar)..
..but a study focussing on the smoke from tobacco and weed..
..found/concluded that the smoke from cannabis did not have those same cancer-causing properties found in tobacco..
..and are in fact very different beasts..
..about all they have in common..is that both are ‘smoke’..
(as i said..if needed..i’ll dig out the link..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Where there’s green smoke there’s phire-ilu.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Can someone (Toad?) explain to me the ‘Green-think’ which says ‘Nicotine’ cigarette bad, ‘Marijuana’ cigarette good?
You inhale both, both contain harmful substances, both are bad for your health, and yet the Greens are incredibly insistent that one is better that the other.
Why?
July 1st, 2009 at 1:35 pm
garth george arguing this on nat rad last wk was a hoot..
all he cd come up with..when pushed for ‘why not change the law..?’
was only able to say,,’because its’ illegal’..(!)
(yes..but..garth..)
..and that it is a ‘gateway drug’..
..a hoary old lie so creaky/discredited you rarely hear it uttered now..
..and if we are talking ‘gateway drugs’..
..given that alcohol in the mind of alcoholics distills into an opiate..
…(that is what differentiates alcoholics and drunks..that chemical alteration..
..and alcohol withdrawals/’the horrors’ are a cousin of heroin/opiate withdrawals..
..it also explains why so many ex-junkies clasp alcohol to their bosom…
..(that or that vile methadone..(shudder..!..)
.anyway..the point for garth george..
..(and other trotters out of that hoary old chestnut..)
..that following his gateway theorem..
..alcohol should be banned…
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I will treat this as seriously as I can… I know it was written more for entertainment.
1. Smoking kills. Right? That’s what your PC mates have been pushing down the public’s throats to the stage CHristchurch is talking of banning smoking outside in public parks.
Not a Green party policy. Who’s idea was it?
2. Smoking stuffs your lungs.
True. Cannabis is not addictive, people smoke less of it. For Medical users the tradeoff is dying of cancer in 30 years vs being able to eat and enjoy today
3. All the Greens would go onto prescriptions with mysterious ailments. They would want the State to pay for the dope.
This is not worthy of reply.
4. Bongs pong.
Where? In the home of the individual who is ill.
5. Ill people on marijuana would be a danger on the roads.
Nothing in this law changes the “driving under the influence” laws.
Cannabis users are usually aware that their driving is impaired, they drive badly AND slowly.
Ill people are always a danger on the roads.
6. Fairness – ill cigarette smokers (and I’m not thinking of those with lung cancer or emphysema) are not allowed to puff.
I hadn’t heard of cigarettes having a medicinal effect. Is there something new in the literature?
7. We don’t want Green folk dancing and Buddhist “umming and ooming” chants annoying other hospital patients.
This is not worthy of reply.
8. Smoking marijuana tends to stuff up your sense of time while you are high. We can’t have marijuana creating havoc for medical appointments.
Given the percentage of the population to be affected, this is not likely to be a problem.
Given that Phil is swearing off the ad-homs for the month, this seems to me to be a cheap shot.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
A fresh bone to chew on folk. This article, which I found through the glorious Arts & Letters Daily, mentions the Queen’s apology to Maori as it discusses historians and international victimhood. An interesting read.
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21676
July 1st, 2009 at 1:57 pm
here is that link for you..jack..
..it will take you to seven other links..which will answer any/all questions you may have re cancer/pot…
..(it also includes that study/comparion between tobacco/cannabis smoke i referred to earlier..)
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/media-hysterics-about-supposed-potcancer-link-nothing-new/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Let’s be clear, and fair to the greens, I don’t think the decriminalisation of marijuana is one of their policies and I believe it hasn’t been since Nandor’s tenure.
However, the promotion of marijuana as being harmless is outright wrong. The evidence is clear and plentiful. It is hard to believe that there are people out there who would raise children while under the influence of this drug (well, it should be hard to believe, unfortunately it’s just too common). I believe it was in the Nia Glassie case that an early childhood worker testified to smelling cannabis on Nia. Where there’s smoke there’s danger to the children. There is impaired mental functionality, poor reaction times, possibly hallucinations and usually depression.
The real problem though is lost motivation. It is why so many habitual users do not break out of their rut. They simply can’t be bothered, they simply have no ambition. As long as they can have another smoke they don’t care too much about anything else.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
do you have any links/evidence for those claims..?..rightnow..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Ignoring for a second that it’s their choice to live their life that way and you’re not their dad, this is also not necessarily the case, in my experience. I know several very active, intelligent, hard-working professionals who smoke weed as regularly as many people drink alcohol.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Komata
To summarize what I just said towards your reasonable question.
1. Nicotine is an incredibly addictive substance. Cannabis is not addictive. You cannot develop a physical dependency on Marijuana though this is possible and quite likely for both Cigarettes and Alcohol. You do not need more and stronger doses.
2. There is no known medicinal property of a cigarette. It does have a psychotropic property with respect to concentration.
3. There is no known lethal dose of marijuana. You can administer nicotine or alcohol to a person in quantity and kill them with it.
3. (a) While a medical user is going to smoke more (Here I am taking your question to refer to recreational use not the subject of this legislation). It is normal for a recreational user to smoke far less marijuana than a cigarette user smokes cigarettes. No such thing as a “pack-a-day” user in any community I know of. The quantity affects the damage done to the lungs.
3.(b) The medical user smoking enough to get therapeutic effects is going to be more at risk for long term lung damage. This is a trade-off he/she has to take on board with their MD, not to be decided by legislation.
4. The Greens never advocated making cigarette smoking completely illegal. New Zealand does not need another black-market drug feeding the gangs.
5. Greens advocate harm-minimization as a policy. Oddly this is supported by that notable bunch of left wingers at Cato. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
6. WTF is the government doing getting mixed up in medical decisions? Why is Cannabis impossible to permit when the MD can prescribe Morphine for pain but with more side effects and risk of addiction? It seems clear to ME that the problem is that someone is desperately afraid that someone else might actually enjoy themselves. Blue-nosed hypocritical governmental busybodies.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
As with Drug testing in the workplace (becoming almost standard procedure in some industries),so should it be with those receiving benefits,if only to ensure that any monies given to them is actually used for the purpose intended.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
A very interesting (and somewhat evasive) answer from Chris Finlayson to a question posed by the Labour MP for Maori affairs.
I cannot remember the exact nature of the question but the gist of it was “Will Maori own the seabed and foreshore when the govt repeals the bill”, from the answer given by Finlayson it is clear that Neville Key is happy to give away the rights of ALL Kiwi’s to appease the apartheid party’s racist call for foreshore and seabed ownership.
Given Neville Key’s back down (lie) on tax cuts, his back down (lie) on getting tough on bludgers and his back down (lie) on the smacking referendum coupled with his gutless appeasement of the apartheid party I suspect (and hope) that his time as PM will be brief.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
bjchip,
That was a dangerously reasonable and well argued comment. I am concerned you are raising the bar to a level that will exclude 99% of commentators here. Please desist from such behaviour in the future.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:38 pm
bjchip,
So is your face.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
BJ
“Please provide a reason WHY the medical marijuana bill should be defeated.”
Apart from the long list of reasons posted by other contributors a very good reason would be that the vast majority of the public DO NOT want it.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Big Bruv in your 2.3 post are you saying that Maori are claiming right to all the seabed — to the whole vast economic zone?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Greens Drug Policy
http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/summary/drugs
The lost-motivation argument might be a good one if I had not watched the “habitual users” get good grades and go on to medical school. It IS a problem for some people. Much as Alcohol is a problem for some people. The differences in effect on others are pretty striking, as is the ease of putting it behind you. You are describing psychological addiction and people subject to that systematic self-destruction are going to do it with whatever substance is available to them. The underlying cause is not the drug but the individual.
I don’t claim, nor do the Greens claim, that any drug is completely benign. The mythology around marijuana however, goes way beyond anything rational. I suggest looking at the timing of it becoming illegal and think about the lies told in the “reefer madness” hysteria then. We showed that one at my Uni in the 70′s for comic relief. The problem is that there are some very strong prejudices in place, built up over years of falsehoods from the state. Look to the decriminalization in Portugal to see the difference between the effects of prohibition and harm-reduction policies. Consider the gang’s dependence on illegal drugs for income.
This is a first baby step. I personally think we could do much better, but the question today is purely medical.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Thank you BB.. that was actually a good argument, though it is a horrible reason.
The majority is allowed to be wrong about many things and wind up being overruled by legal and moral truth.
It happens all the time. The majority is not in general, permitted or morally justified in making laws that discriminate against a minority. That’s true in almost any functional democracy and is built into things like the US Constitution. There are limits to what the majority is allowed to do. In this case the majority (if there IS such a majority and I think you might be surprised if it were put to a referendum) is demanding that its ill-informed views about a drug be placed ahead of medical knowledge, the doctor-patient relationship and the health of people who are sick.
I repeat this question in simpler terms. WTF gives the state the right to interfere with effective medical treatments?
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“…# sbk (92) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
As with Drug testing in the workplace (becoming almost standard procedure in some industries),so should it be with those receiving benefits,if only to ensure that any monies given to them is actually used for the purpose intended..”
an excellent argument there sbk..
..in favor of allowing a person to legally grow-their-own..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 3:14 pm
bjchip at 2.56 posted: ” …WTF gives the state the right to interfere with effective medical treatments?”
So cough mixtures should again be able to contain heroin, and it’s wrong to seek changes in other pharmaceuticals that can be a source of ingredients for making P?
On your argument, people shouldn’t be able to question medical use of electric shock treatment either.
BJ talks of the myths and mania (reefer madness) that have surrounded or still surround marijuana use. The other side of this coin is the near-cult based on marijuana use. Look at its use in the religion Nandor T. follows, for example. And the celebration of marijuana by the beat poets and writers.
Just because some medical students use marijuana doesn’t make it right. They carve up corpses too, and that’s not something you want everyone along the block able to take up as a hobby. Also, how long does it stay in the smoker’s system? Would you want your brain surgery performed by a scalpel wielder who was puffing to the early hours of the morning before your operation?
Then there is the question of marijuana’s interaction with other drugs, and the effect it seems to have on increasing incidence of schizophrenia.
Perhaps its as bad as tobacco after all.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
..in favor of allowing a person to legally grow-their-own.. No.!
But think of all those pesky grow lights Phil.Not sure if the greens would approve.Would need another dam juat to power them.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:50 pm
If you could use Cannabis to create a potent, addictive and potentially lethal substance I might be more inclined to see your point Jack5. You can’t. That is however, the case with a cough medicine containing heroin and the pseudo-ephedrine in a cough mixture… which I note is NOT illegal for the MD to prescribe.
Nor is the argument about the clinical use of electro-shock. That one is up to the medical profession and while it is legal to use, it isn’t notably addictive. So so so….
We delve into the recreational and religious uses then…
I haven’t discussed religious issues. I am a godless atheist and have little truck with it. However, if someone wants to celebrate some religious ritual with a substance that does less damage than other legal substances I have to wonder what the issue is. Why is the state SO keen to interfere with this one? That’s a REAL question.
Then we have the backwards-relevance of what medical students do or don’t do. The point was whether the Marijuana affects the ability of people to be motivated and do well at school or work. The fact that it did not affect the competitive ability or drive of pre-med students at one of the more difficult schools in the country shows that this is not a significant issue, at least for more mature users who have already got a goal. To then work backwards from the idea that they also carve cadavers and this is not generally desirable so pot smoking is not generally desirable is a failure of basic logic.
I addressed the “schizophrenia” issue previously. Did you understand the genetic interaction? As the current science understands it a small minority of people is at greater risk.
I don’t expect the scalpel wielder to be stoned or drunk or sleepless before the surgery. Nor is that permissible for any other critical occupation. Operating under the influence is called malpractice. It isn’t a reason to keep the law we have.
Finally as bad as tobacco is, and without any redeeming features at all, it IS legal. What business does the state have interfering with our individual rights this way?
Particularly when it could be regulated and taxed and the state, rather than the gangs would get the money and be able to reduce other taxes or pay for more services???
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Nice one SBK
I think we’d have to grow it outdoors. Something new for our farmers to plant and profit from.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
What you gave Jack5 was a reason the state MIGHT be inclined to interfere with an “effective medical treatment” the heroin and pseudo-ephedrine can be precursor chemicals. That gives the state a reason, but it is a reason that doesn’t apply to Cannabis… and which doesn’t cause pseudo-ephedrine to be left off the list of drugs that an MD can use.
I WOULD argue that if there was credible medical evidence that heroin in cough syrup was as effective or more effective than anything else for something, it should be capable of being prescribed by the MD. That isn’t I think, the case.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
BJ
“I repeat this question in simpler terms. WTF gives the state the right to interfere with effective medical treatments? ”
First of all you are really stretching it by calling dope an “effective medical treatment”, there are mountains of evidence that would not support your assertion.
Secondly, I would not have thought that you would have an issue with the actions of the state, after all, your party is the one that does not trust us to raise our own kids as we see fit.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Nookin (83) Vote: 9 0 Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:32 am
I had to check the date today. After watching Breakfast today where one of our esteemed academics advancied the proposition that parents should have one vote for themselves and one vote for each child under 18 I thought we were back on April 1. Just think, Macsyna King would have had 4 votes
Not to mention yet another foreigner been paid for by my taxes, to dream-up such utter, and contemptuous nonsense. Where do these morons come from FFS??
July 1st, 2009 at 4:11 pm
bjchip, the various research on the ‘schizophrenia’ issue points to the risk of developing schizophrenia for regular cannabis users being up to 10 times higher than non-users. The research actually shows that someone who already has the genetic disposition to developing schizophrenia is up to 10 times more likely to develop it if they are a regular marijuana user. As an example if someone with the genetic trait can be said to have a 6% chance of developing schizophrenia, then that increases up to a 60% chance if they use cannabis regularly (which they define as 1 joint per day)
We are aware already of the problems with tobacco and alcohol. These problems are not a justification to legalise marijuana on the basis that it is less harmful. Rather they are a warning as to what may happen if you do legalise it. Think who stands to profit from it? Tobacco companies already have plans for production should it be legalised. Let big business get involved in marijuana distribution and the gangs will look like amateurs.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:13 pm
BJ: Are you saying that marijuana should be treated like alcohol? That is regulated and taxed by the State?
I guess there are similarities in health danger, in that some people seem more genetically prone to alcoholism than others. This may or may not be the cause for greater alcohol problems among groups of people such as Scots and Irish, Russians and Scandinavians, North American indigneous tribes, and perhaps even Polynesians. Also the low incidence of such problems in people such as the Chinese.
However, is there any proof that alcohol may cause schizophrenia in some genetically susceptible people?
Marijuana also provides some of the health drawbacks that tobacco does, such as effects on lungs.
Additionally, there are also problems detecting those under the influence of marijuana compared with those under the influence of alcohol.
And also I’m not convinced that marijuana is a mere frequent habit of the social misfits who bludge on society rather than a cause of their dull, lacklustre, and ultimately destructive lifestyles.
Both marijuana and alcohol seem like the mass-controlling soma of Aldous Huxley’s famous novel. Why champion this bloody weed marijuana?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
looks like Hoyts will be the next business to fall over in NZ.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10581882
Why do they keep recycling these idiots?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Really? Mountains of evidence? Where is this evidence?
Does it or does it not effectively manage Glaucoma?
Does it or does it NOT actually assist people with nausea during chemotherapy?
Those are just for starters. It actually has more than a dozen additional uses.
You go out into the wide world BB and find me some evidence against its effectiveness. You may have noticed in the past that I tend to watch for facts and science, not assertions and opinions. I haven’t changed just because I came here for a visit.
The medical case clear enough that even these folks support the bill –
http://www.nzdf.org.nz/cannabis
Not particularly keen on drugs of any sort but they came out for it… because it makes SENSE.
Harm minimization and less state intervention in this aspect of our lives and decriminalization work. It is a Libertarian issue. Real communists have problems with this stuff. More evidence that your view of the Green party is not quite true to the reality. On this issue Green policy aligns very well with Libertarians.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
As to my affiliation with the Greens. IF you had been paying attention, you might have noticed that I argue with them on some occasions and the most notable recent row had to do with S59. Which was not a GREEN bill, it was a private-members bill. We did not get to vote on it… or vet it in any way whatsoever. I have the same right to have “issues” with the actions of the state as you do BB… and you would not be bringing THIS up if you had a real argument to offer.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 4:42 pm
big bruv..
this link will answer your questions about the healing properties of cannabis..
..(the list of proven benefits/treatments is surprisingly long..)
i have much more evidence under ‘medical marijuana’ at whoar..
..but this is a good start..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/marijuana-is-real-medicine/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Jack5
Yes.. you got it correctly. Regulated and taxed by the state.
The harm profiles of Marijuana and Alcohol are not that greatly different… they ARE different but the swings and roundabouts seem to bring them to something like parity. Alcohol users can be PHYSICALLY addicted to their drug and they build up a tolerance for it as well. Liver damage is a pretty common result. Hallucinations and Not true of Cannabis.
A cop I once knew told me he’d rather arrest a pothead than a drunk any time at all. Much easier to talk to, much less likely to puke on the seat, much less likely to get aggravated and violent. Those were his reasons.
People who get chronically drunk are likely to have mental-health problems. The question of causation is as difficult there as it is with cannabis. Always vexed is the question of causation. The Alcoholic can reach a state of dementia that is no better than schizophrenia.
And also I’m not convinced that marijuana is a mere frequent habit of the social misfits who bludge on society rather than a cause of their dull, lacklustre, and ultimately destructive lifestyles.
Both marijuana and alcohol seem like the mass-controlling soma of Aldous Huxley’s famous novel. Why champion this bloody weed marijuana?
Yeah… there is that. The question for the society as a whole is, can we find something better for these people to be doing? That’s a whole other issue. If people have real dreams and hopes for the future they seldom turn to dreams spawned by subtle chemicals. If they feel hopeless… ?
We’ve addressed the health effects of smoking marijuana… As I understand it can be had by vaporization as well or eaten and the effects are useful and less a problem for the lungs. However, the other points are that the effect of that tar and THC is different from the effect of tar and nicotine, and the quantities are vastly different. Unlikely indeed that someone will smoke enough marijuana to rival a pack-a-day smoker of cigarettes – which ARE legal.
As to detecting the influence. Alcohol gets a blood test. A Cannabis test is feasible from the same sample. Not really something I know that much about though. If someone can point me at research about detection techniques I’ll be grateful.
Thanks
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Ummm.. WTF is National doing in their attacks on Phil Goff in the general parliament debate? Are they trying to hand Labour back the centre?
July 1st, 2009 at 5:09 pm
If enough people sign up for it they can have a bloody referendum on the making all public buildings pink as far as I’m concerned toad.
THATS what a democracy is, not just the narrow range of shit that you personally agree. But what would we expect from the part of Sue Bradford.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:16 pm
bjchip 3.51pm says
“I think we’d have to grow it outdoors”…
Dependant on climate/geography,dogs to patrol crop/patch,security guards,electric fences…etc.
As with most things not bolted down in this country,it is quite likely to be taxed by the locals.
But that wont stop people using grow lights.There will always be a market for the more potent/dangerous strains that hydro/indoor growing provides.There lies the catch 22 for the Greens.Decriminalisation or energy efficiency,cant have it both ways.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I see wimpy i love everyone EVERYBODY Johnboy key is giving NZ to the moari, fuck put a banker in charge and the nerd key will give it away, go john wimpy key what a give away tooser, wait to pay to walk on a beach $40 BRO or some dak, the bro will charge and charge , and remember key( A WIMP) a investment banker GAVE NZ AWAY fuck the turd national party , WE NEVER LEARN WITH THIS SHITARSE PARTY god NZ has been screwed so many times by national AND WE NEVER LEARN i never learn damn
July 1st, 2009 at 5:28 pm
sbk said..”..There will always be a market for the more potent..”
my experience/preference is for quality organically grown outdoor..
..that is much ‘higher’/more complex than hydro-indoors..
..and as for that myth the pot is stronger today..?..
..nah..!
..good pot has always been good pot..
..and if you knew where to find it..
..pretty much always here..
..(in fact..the quality of much of the northland pot has dropped in recent decades..
..theories are that strains are flogged out..
..and the quality control is reckless..to say the least..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Is this a pot head thread?
July 1st, 2009 at 6:46 pm
right now said..
“..bjchip, the various research on the ’schizophrenia’ issue points to the risk of developing schizophrenia for regular cannabis users being up to 10 times higher than non-users..”
this is a serious concern..and is one often raised..
..this link (recent research in britain) should disabuse you of those concerns..
..it also..using historical testing-results..lays to rest that ‘pot is much stronger now’ myth..
http://whoar.co.nz/2007/the-new-batch-of-lies-that-are-told-about-cannabisthe-current-big-one-being-trotted-outis-how-cannabis-is-now-20-25-times-stronger-than-it-used-to-be/
if you have any other questions/concerns..just ask..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
This is kinda fun!, watching Phool get his hopes up only for those hopes to be dashed once again.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:03 pm
big bruv..f.y.i..
..the new zealand drug foundation has also come out in support of medical marijuana..
..they take the compassionate view..
..and note that this is a different issue from decriminalisation/legalisation..
http://www.nzdf.org.nz/media-medical-cannabis-jul06
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 7:09 pm
ahem..!..apologies for duplicating the new zealand drug foundation link from b.j. chip..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
BJ
First of all let me say that you can take your “respect” and shove it up your arse, while you are at it you can take your superior attitude and put that in the same place.
My perception of the Greens is spot on, most of them are control freaks, most of them are duplicitous bastards who use various causes to gain support then drop those same causes like a hot coal when they have been elected.
Medical marijuana and animal rights are just two of those causes, of course the major cause they drop once elected are the causes that has anything to do with our environment.
The Greens are nothing more than the Alliance in drag, its Parliamentary members care little about the environment and more about so called social justice, hell, I even watched that stupid woman Bradford having a crack at the govt today for having the temerity to find long term dole bludgers some work!
On the issue of medical marijuana, I could not give a shit who is supporting it, I could not care how many libertarians want it to be legalised as they are even less of a political force than the Greens (I note that a large number of the bastards have infested the ACT party but that is a discussion for another day)
I also know that there is indeed a mountain of evidence out there that shows how harmful it can be, and guess what, a part of me just does not like the idea of a whole bunch of dope heads like Phool running around smoking the crap in public.
The reality is that no political party is ever going to make it legal and nor should they.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:42 pm
“..I also know that there is indeed a mountain of evidence out there that shows how harmful it can be,.”
big bruv..
cd you provide some links/evidence to back that assertion..?
..as i have followed this issue reasonably closely for some time..
..and have found a dearth of such/any evidence..proving such an assertion..
..if you are able to prove me wrong..i would be happy to read any links you could provide..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Phool
Every single day at least ten people including me prove you wrong, just how much punishment are you willing to take?
Seriously, why do you keep pushing this barrow and why on earth would you choose to push that barrow here of all places?
You spend an extraordinary amount of time attempting to wind up some of the contributors here by boasting about the money you steal from us, you avoid answering any reasonable question posed by many of those same contributors yet you still have the cheek to expect those same people to have a rational debate with you on the one issue that YOU care about.
…eh!….
….it, simply ain’t going to happen……
…..eh…..
July 1st, 2009 at 8:10 pm
oohh..!..reid..!..my tongue is bleeding..!
jonothan coleman is in parliament repeating those false assertions around schitzophrenia..
..and this beauty..
..”cannabis smoke is ten times worse for you than tobacco smoke..”
whoar..!
..and he is a ‘doctor’..?
..whoar..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 8:13 pm
um..!..are you unable to provide even one link/shred of evidence..?..
..big bruv..?
(surely you want to prove your ‘case’..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 8:23 pm
wow..!..now the other national ‘doctor’..paul hutchison…is just telling the biggest porkies..
..denying the existance of any/all evidence of pain relief from cannabis..(!)
..(both these national party mp’s are just denying pain relief for suffering new zealanders..
..and they are both doctors..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Phool
I don’t need to prove anything, go and look it up for yourself, there is plenty of it.
Stay tuned to your wireless though Phool, it wont be long before you hear the vote.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Rightnow
Sorry I missed your comment. Too many too fast. Phil has linked to an article that cites some UK research… I’ve been diving into the BMJ and some other places…
Interesting stuff.
I am getting a range of 7-13% increased likelihood of schizophrenia like disorders based on intake dosage for adolescents. I do accept that this is probably reasonable. Remember, I am NOT Phil.
I also twigged to this in my travels Note the increase for DAILY use of Cannabis here is 2x and then note the increase for alcohol is EIGHT times… On this basis we should outlaw booze and all light up. I don’t advocate that, just pointing out that there is a real problem with policy matching risk profiles. People have gone quite stupid over the fear of the word and the “reefer madness” crowd is pleased. I am not. Unnecessary prohibition is a VERY bad thing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2380692?dopt=Abstract
So accepting the 7-13% increase off a baseline of 0.6% we get 6 in 1000 rising to 8 in 1000 at most. I am being generous here. Not earth shattering. There are things that are problematical still. Depression was gender coupled. Females who were also frequent users, were much more likely to become depressed. I wonder if they controlled for weight gain as a secondary effect of heavy use. Can’t see that level of detail.
Finally there is the genetic coupling that appeared so compelling.
http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/001559.html
This is particularly interesting, the absolute numbers were quite small, but the effects of this genetic coupling are apparently quite potent at enhancing risk. Prevalence of the genetic weakness in the society as a whole is not reported, and could explain the entire correlation.
All of this hinges on use of the drug at an early age, something that I don’t support and won’t argue, nor is it part of Green party policy. It might be useful for an MD who is prescribing to be aware of the genetic markers. It might be if we go for legalization we require testing for those markers… provided we could find a simple test.
Reducing attempted use by female adolescents is probably a matter of publicizing the truth about it helping them to gain weight… though that would be more effective for some societies than others…. but no case is being made for adolescent use and the “entry age” is a negotiable thing. A case could be made for making it 19 or 20 rather than 18.
None of this of course, is of interest with respect to medicinal use. THAT is a gimme. If the MD says use Morphine it is available… there should be no problem using Cannabis in its place.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 8:34 pm
kahune..(maori party)..is arguing against it..
just trotting out a bunch of total lies..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 8:38 pm
They are not lies Phool, I thought her speech was a good one.
Tell me, are all Green MP’s forced to support his bill?
July 1st, 2009 at 8:47 pm
BB.. Shout loud insults. Make rude noises. Present no evidence…
You really aren’t much different no matter where you are.
You would do better to find a pebble of that evidence and make an argument around it.
The casual onlooker can only conclude that there is nothing there.
Which isn’t surprising to me.
BJ
July 1st, 2009 at 9:02 pm
why are we blocked from viewing the voting process..?
w..t.f..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 9:05 pm
no..bb..it’s called a conscience vote..
phil)whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Well, that’s that one out of the way.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:10 pm
“oohh..!..reid..!..my tongue is bleeding..!”
Keep it up phil, you’re doing great.
You get used to it after awhile, even tho it hurts at first..
And I’m completely with you on this argument.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:10 pm
So now Met wants to ban something else!
What a waste of time she is.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:11 pm
34-86, voted down. What a pity.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Lol…you could not make this shit up, Met wants to legalise cannabis but ban booze on the grounds that it is a dangerous drug.
The Greens really are idiots.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:15 pm
BB. They’re both drugs – they should be dealt with similarly. The Greens are the only ones who are consistent.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Phool…where are you Phool?
July 1st, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Apart from smoking marijuana, why is it that people tolerate the complete ignorance re: hemp and its uses?
Is it spooky for people? Is it weally scawy for them?
Hemp as we all know, is an extremely useful fast-growing environmentally friendly fibrous plant with a myriad of industrial uses from paper to fabric and possibly? (jury’s not yet in) for biofuel – [Whaleoil's mileage differs on the latter - he has some useful info on this].
It’s only in the last century its usage became restricted because people discovered its psychotropic properties.
However, it’s such a great plant with myriad industrial uses, surely, I would have thought, that segment of the public with 3-digit IQs, would be requesting the idiot politicians re-assess their myopic stance in all areas. But no, not so far, apparently. Foolish, really, and quite costly for us to continue to fail to exploit this amazing piece of nature.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Jarbury
The only consistency that the Greens show is their hypocrisy.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:28 pm
so..big bruv..despite 63% of nzers supporting medical marijuana…
..and this able to provide real relief for suffering new zealanders..
..you are happy with this outcome..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Why didn’t anyone tell me about just how delightfully deluded and insane Chris Trotter is?
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2009/04/pilgering-2008-election.html
“Over the course of the next ninety minutes you will see how the rules governing the funding of election campaigns in New Zealand were cleverly manipulated by a group of wealthy, right-wing religious fanatics to run a covert campaign, valued at more than a million dollars, to help the conservative National Party opposition win the 2005 general election. And how, when the unexpected winner of that election, the New Zealand Labour Party, attempted to reform the electoral finance laws that very nearly allowed the 2005 election to be subverted, the country’s news media ran a relentless crusade to discredit the new legislation – and its sponsors.
…
What saved President Chavez, was the existence of a single, publicly-owned television station, which was willing to tell the Venezuelan people the truth.
The tragedy of the story you are about to hear is that it has no such happy ending. Not only was there no major media outlet willing to stand up and tell the people of New Zealand the truth about what was happening in their country between 2005 and 2008, but New Zealand’s voters, denied access to that truth, had no means of knowing they were being lied to.”
Look out everyone! Religious Right under the bed!
July 1st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Reid at 9.19 posted:”…However, it’s such a great plant with myriad industrial uses, surely…”
This supports the view that marijuana is a cult. Not only do the cultists want to smoke it and cook and eat it, they want to wear clothes made of its source, hemp, and probably live in houses made of hemp.
At least cigarette smokers (and I’m not one) don’t want to go round wearing tobacco leaf or wearing tobacco leaf clothes.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Jack you obviously haven’t read much history have you?
Try it and see what hemp was being used for in the 1800′s.
If it worked then would it work now? Of course, why not? The only reason it’s not being used now is because of govt and media manipulation.
I’m surprised you can’t come up with a better argument than “anyone who advocates its use is a hippy.”
I thought you were a bit more widely read.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:29 pm
reading through this thread the disparities in evidence offered couldn’t be clearer..
the progressives have presented linked evidence to both support their cases..
..and to refute the opinions/claims of the prohibitionists..(the anti-science people)..
..whereas those prohibitionists have not been able to provide one skerrick of evidence to support their claims..
..not one..!
..all they have offered are the usual tired/irrational prejudices..
..and quite gobsmacking to see in parliament..the national party ‘doctors’..
..presenting such twisting/refutation of proven scientific evidence/research..
..for shame..!
..to them..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Yes phil, wasn’t it a shame we didn’t see the Liarbore govt attempt to make a move in the right direction re: this all thru its nine year term.
I woulda thought, if anyone would have, they would’ve, then.
Weren’t they just the great big sillies, then?
P.S. Yes, I know you aren’t Liarbore, but I’m just drawing the behavioral comparison to point to the fact it’s not necessarily down to the flavour of the govt of the day which is responsible for this travesty.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:05 pm
the size of the defeat..posted against that 63% public support..
..shows how far out of touch with the voters most mp’s are..
..that and they are ‘scared’..
the one that surprised me tho’..was the maori party..
..when so many maori die from diabetes..
..and cannabis is the only relief for the excruciating pins & needles in physical extremeties..
..suffered in the final stages of that miserable death..
..and the maori party says..’no..!..our people cannot have that medicine..!’..(!)
..it’s a major ‘for shame..!’..for them..
..and all those other m.p.’s who voted for their fellow citizens to ‘just suffer!’..
..parliaments’ worst hour..for quite some time..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 11:18 pm
phil, the real issue is, the MP have v limited ammo, and where should they best take a stand.
Unfortunately, vis-a-vis the governing party, they’re not in the same “Most Favoured Nation” position that ACT occupies which gives ACT much more actual influence notwithstanding their actual nominal power.
So given that, if you were the MP, with the portfolios they have the granting of which has burned some of their credit, how would you play your remaining cards?
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:32 am
Hey pothead phil: tell me about how butter and milk are Big Dairy conspiracies that will be busted wide open once some enterprising journalist reveals all to the public.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 am
Actually Jack5
What has been shown is that the ANTI-cannabis forces are basically a “cult” with no more scientific or medical credibility than witch doctors or the makers of “reefer madness”. In time the dinosaurs died off, unfortunately the same is not true of idiots, so I have no real hope that parliament will actually improve on this performance anytime soon.
I have sort-of enjoyed visiting, but I don’t expect to stay. Some folks here seemed to enjoy the information seeing the light of day and the arguments being made. Others.. well they just don’t change no matter what the facts are or how politely things are phrased or powerful the evidence is… a group overrepresented in parliament no matter which party is in power.
respectfully
BJ
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 am
BB
You didn’t actually notice the evidence I presented that Booze is 4 TIMES as dangerous as pot. DID you….
Which should be illegal again?
BJ
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:29 am
Dawn it’s hot in London and has been all week. 32c and sun sun sun.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:50 am
” Paul Marsden
I had to check the date today. After watching Breakfast today where one of our esteemed academics advancied the proposition that parents should have one vote for themselves and one vote for each child under 18 I thought we were back on April 1. Just think, Macsyna King would have had 4 votes”
I would have thought you of all people would be in support of traditional families getting disproportional levels of representation in the election?
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:56 am
Racer – my mind boggles. I can only presume the academic must have given long and serious thought as to which elements of society can afford to have the most children. You pointed out Macsyna King would have 4 votes under that … thin edge of the wedge – the largest quantities of children have always seemed to me to be those who cannot afford to bring them up with their own earnings, but depend upon the state’s assistance. The middle class workers who pay the taxes for such assistance often don’t feel they can have more than one or two children these days, without sacrificing their own and their children’s livelihood.
I’m thankful that no truly democratic government could ever countenance such a ludicrous proposition. If there is any determination for the child to be represented, teach them to wield a crayon in the voting booth, and let them simply be influenced by their parents.
I’d have loved to vote McGillicuddy Serious when I was 12 – I LOVED their ads. At high school, most of the guys I spoke to expressed similar desires. Had anybody asked me back then whether I believed that as a human being I should be entitled to a vote, I imagine I’d have said “hell yeah”. Had anybody asked me whether I’d be willing for my parents to take that entitlement and vote for fuddy duddy stuffy National, I’d have been pissed out of my brain.
As it happens, I don’t believe children or teenagers should have a vote. But if they did? I sure as hell don’t think adults should be allowed to take that vote for them. Nobody ever should take a vote for somebody else.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:29 am
This story translates to NZ quite easily.
Britain is facing a reposession timebomb, Vince Cable warned yesterday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/5700963/Just-six-families-helped-by-government-Mortgage-Rescue-Scheme.html
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:42 am
“..reid (2852) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:18 pm
phil, the real issue is, the MP have v limited ammo, and where should they best take a stand..”
two facts:
this was a conscience vote..
..and it was only to move the bill to the select committee stage..
..what ‘stand’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:10 am
Hey expat – with a link that long I thought Philu had hacked your user account.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 am
There’s no need to discuss the real or imagined harmful side-effects of cannabis or its medical usefulness.
It’s a question of principle.
Should people be able to live their lives how they want to live them, or should the nanny state restrict your freedom to do what you like with your body for your own good?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 am
so..big bruv..despite 63% of nzers supporting medical marijuana…
..and this able to provide real relief for suffering new zealanders..
..you are happy with this outcome..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
“Happy” is not the right word, Ecstatic would be a better description.
As we heard last night Phool there are many other drugs available that can alleviate the “suffering” these people feel.
And please, I do not believe for one moment that 63% want to legalise dope.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 am
“And please, I do not believe for one moment that 63% want to legalise dope.”
Though that’s not what he said, is it?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:38 am
Labour must be seething over John Key’s success with taking Maori on board. Labour took the Maori vote for granted for a long time. It will be interesting to see how Maori vote in the next general election.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
The main argument for medical canabis is that it is a powerful anti-emetic which means it can be a Godsend for people on anti cancer chemotherapy when the vomiting prevents the absorbtion of the drug.
This anti-emetic property makes canabis dangerous “in the field” because it allows young people, in particular, to drink huge amounts of alcohol (spirits in particular) without the vomit reflex kicking in to protect them from alcohol poisoning.
But in the hospital ward that is a potent and useful effect.
I also do not understand the argument that we cannot use marijuana for medical purposes because it is also an illegal drug.
When I had my aortic dissection event (which is terribly painful) I was only able to get any sleep because of my morphine injections.
They were wonderful but I did not rush out of hospital looking for a fix.
I can see the attraction. Quite apart from the pain relief morphine makes everything look radiant and beautiful. The nurses used to bung it in then line up at the end of the bed and enjoy watching my face as my mind converted these three rather ordinary looking young women into the most beautiful women in the world. It’s nice to spread some joy around!
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I find it hilarious that so many here support the State’s power to dictate what you can and cannot grow in your own garden!
You suckers!
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“I find it hilarious that so many here support the State’s power to dictate what you can and cannot grow in your own garden!”
Yeah well unless you’ve never voted the jokes on you, for as far as I know, there’s been laws against growing tobacco supported by all parties, for yonks.
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Have you ever wondered ‘why’ redbaiter? Why can’t you grow what ever you want in your own garden? Willing to suck that up are you, socialist, statist, because the big boys said so! Grow some balls, Redbaiter, and think!!! To afraid to question, are you? Why can’t you grow what you want? Your garden, your choice! No. Do as you are told, without a squeak, there’s a good little baiter. You’re commie cannon fodder, you are!
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Please address the point Idiot. You were criticising people for voting for Mary Jane prohibition, when you’ve apparently been voting for tobacco prohibition. Do you admit to your hypocrisy or deny it??