Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> General Board >> Legalisation of pot?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294031312

Message started by James Bluntus on Jan 3rd, 2011 at 3:08pm

Title: Legalisation of pot?
Post by James Bluntus on Jan 3rd, 2011 at 3:08pm
Legalise, decrimilise or keep illegal?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by gizmo_2655 on Jan 3rd, 2011 at 4:07pm
Well pot is a reasonably innocuous drug, so either decriminalise or legalise works fine by me..

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Butterfly on Jan 3rd, 2011 at 5:16pm
Keep it illegal. It keeps the market price high and keeps big companies from muscling out the little guy that just wants to make a buck. My friend makes a fortune selling that stuff to those morons.

Potheads are some of the most loathesome and annoying ne'er-do-wells around, so keeping them pissed off is fine by me.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on Jan 3rd, 2011 at 11:05pm
lol, I disagree Butterfly, but know what you mean.
I had an acquaintance, (I won't call him a friend because I didn't like him, as he was a total idiot), who went into the local holden dealership and bought a new car, then when asked how he wanted to finance it, he pulled out a bag of crumpled notes, and said it was OK he'd pay cash.

He was amazed to see the police roll up to his home the following week, with dogs and probes, and proceeded to uncover several containers buried around the garden.
Being the Einstein he was, he of course assumed that someone must have dobbed him in.
When discussing it with friends later, I agreed with his analysis, somebody had dobbed him in, somebody very stupid, himself.

Still, I think that having Marijuana illegal does far greater harm than good.

It should be legal, as should most illicit drugs.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Coral Sea on Mar 4th, 2011 at 5:52am
Intensify the war on drugs to increase profits for drug dealers so they can buy ballin' cars and reflate our economy.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:36am
I'm happy with it being illegal.

if it were legalized, the guv would come sniffing around and want to tax it.
Penalties for tax evasion (ie growing it without a license, or not giving the guv their cut) are far higher than they are for growing weed now.

Just see how they throw the book at anyone caught growing tobacco, which as you know is a legal substance.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by warrigal on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:25pm

James Bluntus wrote on Jan 3rd, 2011 at 3:08pm:
Legalise, decrimilise or keep illegal?


Decriminlize It

BUT don't Legallize IT

What does it matter if someone smokes pot

What has the law got to do with it

They did it So what, confoscant it and thats the end of it

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Mar 4th, 2011 at 7:43pm
Keep it illegal.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Mar 5th, 2011 at 9:33am

muso wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 7:43pm:
Keep it illegal.


I couldn't care less about someone puffing a bit of pot once a week on a Saturday night.
People who smoke it all the time worry me a bit.
I really think that hunting down potheads is
a bit like the witch hunts of the Middle Ages.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Mar 5th, 2011 at 1:25pm

Bobby. wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:

muso wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 7:43pm:
Keep it illegal.


I couldn't care less about someone puffing a bit of pot once a week on a Saturday night.
People who smoke it all the time worry me a bit.
I really think that hunting down potheads is
a bit like the witch hunts of the Middle Ages.


Hunt  down dealers. Ignore those who use small quantities for personal use (except for driving).  Otherwise, keep it illegal.
http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishing.nsf/content/marijuana

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by qikvtec on Mar 5th, 2011 at 1:33pm

... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:36am:
I'm happy with it being illegal.

if it were legalized, the guv would come sniffing around and want to tax it.
Penalties for tax evasion (ie growing it without a license, or not giving the guv their cut) are far higher than they are for growing weed now.

Just see how they throw the book at anyone caught growing tobacco, which as you know is a legal substance.


So is morphine but I reckon you'd have a meeting with a judge if you started producing it at home.

Most drug dealers are done under the Counter Terrorism Financing & Anti Money Laundering Act these days as the penalties are far stiffer than even tax evasion and producing a controlled substance.

Make it legal and use all the money wasted policing and prosecuting in other areas of the community that need it.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Mar 5th, 2011 at 2:37pm
We'll get more stories like this in the newspapers if we legalise cannabis:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/entertainment/weird/fears-talking-cat-abducted-by-aliens/story-e6frep26-1226015957640

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Mar 5th, 2011 at 4:10pm

muso wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 1:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:

muso wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 7:43pm:
Keep it illegal.


I couldn't care less about someone puffing a bit of pot once a week on a Saturday night.
People who smoke it all the time worry me a bit.
I really think that hunting down potheads is
a bit like the witch hunts of the Middle Ages.


Hunt  down dealers. Ignore those who use small quantities for personal use (except for driving).  Otherwise, keep it illegal.
http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishing.nsf/content/marijuana


Muso - do those bad effects pertain to someone who has one puff of a pot cigarette
once every 3 months - or do they refer to someone who smokes very strong stuff
all day every day for years on end?
It all depends on the dosage surely?
There was no dosage data in that list of effects.
I expected more from you as my scientific friend on Ozpolitic.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Mar 5th, 2011 at 7:56pm

Bobby. wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 4:10pm:

muso wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 1:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:

muso wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 7:43pm:
Keep it illegal.


I couldn't care less about someone puffing a bit of pot once a week on a Saturday night.
People who smoke it all the time worry me a bit.
I really think that hunting down potheads is
a bit like the witch hunts of the Middle Ages.


Hunt  down dealers. Ignore those who use small quantities for personal use (except for driving).  Otherwise, keep it illegal.
http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishing.nsf/content/marijuana


Muso - do those bad effects pertain to someone who has one puff of a pot cigarette
once every 3 months - or do they refer to someone who smokes very strong stuff
all day every day for years on end?
It all depends on the dosage surely?
There was no dosage data in that list of effects.
I expected more from you as my scientific friend on Ozpolitic.


I'm not an expert on Marijuana, but the links on that page may provide  answers to your questions.

It always depends on the dosage.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:08pm
It can only be decriminalised, not legalised.

If it was legalised then we would be breaking a UN Convention and we'd find ourselves about as popular as Iran as far as the US is concerned.

Decriminalise it. We've had near three decades of experience with decriminalisation of cannabis in South Australia. Their rate of use is no higher than that in the states where it's illegal (and less than in Qld where it's very heavily policed), they don't have a pot induced mental health crisis and they don't have peoples lives ruined by close encounters with the court system.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:17pm
I think if we had mandatory life imprisonment for drug dealers, we might have less of a drug problem.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:23pm
What constitutes a drug dealer?

Someone selling kilos of speed?
Someone selling baggies of pot to their friends?

Just what we need. More people in jail.

Mandatory sentences suck dogs balls - for any crime.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:28pm

Life_goes_on wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:23pm:
What constitutes a drug dealer?

Someone selling kilos of speed?
Someone selling baggies of pot to their friends?

Just what we need. More people in jail.

Mandatory sentences suck dogs balls - for any crime.


Both of the above. They are destroying the fabric of society, or what remains of it.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:34pm

Quote:
They are destroying the fabric of society, or what remains of it.


Oh well. I just happen to think society is doing fine. I most certainly don't think we're in the midst of some kind of decline.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by djrbfm on Mar 11th, 2011 at 12:41am
actually.
who really cares.

sure, it would be nice to be able to buy it at your local supermart.
but, still.
since all these drug doggies etc, ppl are now networking it.
either that or import seeds and GYO.
what ever measures to stop it are put in place, countermeasure are being also put in place.
just because one smoke a little weed, it doesn't mean one is stupid.
j.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Mar 12th, 2011 at 2:51am
The fabric of society will buck the trend of control and analness. We just aren't generally/democratically built for that type of crap.

Yeah have a joint, it's far less harmful than most of the shite being shoved down our throats these days.
Our purpose is geneally not to make money for others, it is to enjoy the time that we have here on this planet.
If others wish to push push push until they drop dead, then that's their perogative.



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Mar 12th, 2011 at 7:05am

muso wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:28pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:23pm:
What constitutes a drug dealer?

Someone selling kilos of speed?
Someone selling baggies of pot to their friends?

Just what we need. More people in jail.

Mandatory sentences suck dogs balls - for any crime.


Both of the above. They are destroying the fabric of society, or what remains of it.


I'm not an advocate for legalising pot, but it seems alcohol is doing a lot more damage to society - it's just easier to detect on a driver or worker.

The problem with legalising cannabis is that it would be smoked even more prolifically than it is now, especially at work. I've heard people boast they can work and drive well while stoned, but they're kidding themselves.




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Mar 12th, 2011 at 7:41pm

Quote:
The problem with legalising cannabis is that it would be smoked even more prolifically than it is now, especially at work.


Near 30 years experience with decriminalisation in SA would indicate otherwise.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Annie Anthrax on Mar 13th, 2011 at 9:17pm

Quote:
The problem with legalising cannabis is that it would be smoked even more prolifically than it is now, especially at work


Alcohol isn't illegal and nobody thinks it's okay to be drunk at work. It stands to reason most people would realise it's not on to be stoned in the workplace either.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Mar 14th, 2011 at 1:41am

Quote:
The problem with legalising cannabis is that it would be smoked even more prolifically than it is now, especially at work. I've heard people boast they can work and drive well while stoned, but they're kidding themselves.


Generally, I think that it is a very different drug to alcohol. It usually causes one to drive more carefully with far less sacrifice of cognetive skill than that which ocurrs with alcohol.

Most people have tried it, and most don't really care for it unless the situation is right.
If there was a higher (no pun) demand for it, then it would be all over the place as it is easily grown and distributed quite easily without detection.

I've seen many a bong-head, and believe you me, it is a service to society to keep them on it. You really wouldn't like them when they're mad.

It's the bud that has kept them from being mad, not the other way 'round.








Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Mar 14th, 2011 at 2:00am

muso wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
I think if we had mandatory life imprisonment for drug dealers, we might have less of a drug problem.


I agree, but we may have a much worse "people" problem.

People want a drug "usually" to escape from a society that they don't like, or to "fit in" to an aspect of society that they do like.

People don't like to be the meat in the sandwich, feeling trapped.
Most times, they'd rather hide ther own inconquerable normalcy with an "out there" appearance, because anything is better than being the meat in the sandwich.






Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by helian on Mar 14th, 2011 at 6:10am

muso wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:28pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:23pm:
What constitutes a drug dealer?

Someone selling kilos of speed?
Someone selling baggies of pot to their friends?

Just what we need. More people in jail.

Mandatory sentences suck dogs balls - for any crime.


Both of the above. They are destroying the fabric of society, or what remains of it.

A puritanical, magical thinker.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by helian on Mar 14th, 2011 at 6:16am

Amadd wrote on Mar 14th, 2011 at 2:00am:

muso wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
I think if we had mandatory life imprisonment for drug dealers, we might have less of a drug problem.


I agree, but we may have a much worse "people" problem.

People want a drug "usually" to escape from a society that they don't like, or to "fit in" to an aspect of society that they do like.

People don't like to be the meat in the sandwich, feeling trapped.
Most times, they'd rather hide ther own inconquerable normalcy with an "out there" appearance, because anything is better than being the meat in the sandwich.

George Washington's diary entry of August 7, 1765,
"Began to separate the Male from the Female hemp … rather too late."

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Mar 14th, 2011 at 9:04pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 14th, 2011 at 6:10am:

muso wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:28pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:23pm:
What constitutes a drug dealer?

Someone selling kilos of speed?
Someone selling baggies of pot to their friends?

Just what we need. More people in jail.

Mandatory sentences suck dogs balls - for any crime.


Both of the above. They are destroying the fabric of society, or what remains of it.

A puritanical, magical thinker.


I agree. Who needs to clog up the prison system? There's always execution.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Mar 14th, 2011 at 9:05pm

Amadd wrote on Mar 14th, 2011 at 2:00am:

muso wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
I think if we had mandatory life imprisonment for drug dealers, we might have less of a drug problem.


I agree, but we may have a much worse "people" problem.

People want a drug "usually" to escape from a society that they don't like, or to "fit in" to an aspect of society that they do like.

People don't like to be the meat in the sandwich, feeling trapped.
Most times, they'd rather hide ther own inconquerable normalcy with an "out there" appearance, because anything is better than being the meat in the sandwich.


Treat the cause, not the symptom. Good point.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mrhammerhead on Apr 15th, 2011 at 2:13am

James Bluntus wrote on Jan 3rd, 2011 at 3:08pm:
Legalise, decrimilise or keep illegal?



Being a pot user myself, if it is legalize there is no more adventure of buying and using it, the feeling of hiding and always be careful because once it is legal you could buy it anywhere and talked about tax and everything they will put on pot.

Keep in illegal and still users like me will like it that way since it offers more challenge in buying while cops are chasing hehehehe..

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Apr 16th, 2011 at 1:58am
Everything is a drug. Ingest too much H2O and you will die.

The question is only, "Is this chemical good for my idea of what society should be like?"

Can we really rely on laws which prohibit some chemicals and allow others?
It's a bit stupid. Cannibis has never been found to cause one single death in the history of mankind, and yet it is seen as a big evil.
There is very little evil about cannibis, except maybe the lack of production from the plebs.

I am an alcohol user, where I was once a cannibis user. No drugs at all would be better, but I wish with 20-20 hindsight that I had stuck with cannibis.

I now use every legal drug under the sun in an attempt to compensate.
...it costs me money and it makes them money.




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 16th, 2011 at 8:58am

Amadd wrote on Mar 14th, 2011 at 1:41am:

Quote:
The problem with legalising cannabis is that it would be smoked even more prolifically than it is now, especially at work. I've heard people boast they can work and drive well while stoned, but they're kidding themselves.


Generally, I think that it is a very different drug to alcohol. It usually causes one to drive more carefully with far less sacrifice of cognetive skill than that which ocurrs with alcohol.

Most people have tried it, and most don't really care for it unless the situation is right.
If there was a higher (no pun) demand for it, then it would be all over the place as it is easily grown and distributed quite easily without detection.

I've seen many a bong-head, and believe you me, it is a service to society to keep them on it. You really wouldn't like them when they're mad.

It's the bud that has kept them from being mad, not the other way 'round.


Well, it's a complicated issue. What I highlighted is probably the main cause of accidents due to drugs like cannabis. It's the effects on personality that impair the judgement of people. Mind you, a lot of people don't need drugs to become hotheads.

With alcohol and drugs, it's not the acute immediate effects that are always the main problem. As has been proven with study after study, if you have a heavy night on the grog, your judgement will be impaired the next day, as will your ability to concentrate - even if there is no alcohol detected in your system.

As far as the minimum harm track is concerned, the answer lies in encouraging people to drink responsibly. That's all you can do in a free society. If you pull somebody up who had say 6 standard drinks the night before and they had a breathalyser reading of zero, that person will be more impaired (and therefore more likely to have an accident) than those who had three standard drinks for breakfast  ;D.  That's a medical fact, but of course it's difficult to measure impairment. The old police method of getting the driver to walk a straight line (still used in the States) is probably more accurate than the breathalyser.

Amadd - this one will crack you up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUcVvxqogQc

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Apr 16th, 2011 at 11:55am
Come on Muso - that video is not a real bust.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Apr 18th, 2011 at 5:16pm
Yeah I've got a sneaking suspicion that the youtube clip may be staged ;D

As for road accidents involving cannibis, I 'd like to see the stats vs. alcohol and also vs. the average for 18-15yr old males.




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 20th, 2011 at 10:08am

Bobby. wrote on Apr 16th, 2011 at 11:55am:
Come on Muso - that video is not a real bust.


I know. It's from a comedy show, but it's funny all the same.  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Apr 20th, 2011 at 10:55am

Amadd wrote on Apr 18th, 2011 at 5:16pm:
Yeah I've got a sneaking suspicion that the youtube clip may be staged ;D

As for road accidents involving cannibis, I 'd like to see the stats vs. alcohol and also vs. the average for 18-15yr old males.



the stats are stage to appear worse than they are.
They say X% of road crash victims have dope in their system.  Sounds bad, until you discover that a) this includes passengers and b) Weed can take 30 days to be purged from the body, so they don't even need to be under the influence at the time.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 21st, 2011 at 8:52am

... wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 10:55am:

Amadd wrote on Apr 18th, 2011 at 5:16pm:
Yeah I've got a sneaking suspicion that the youtube clip may be staged ;D

As for road accidents involving cannibis, I 'd like to see the stats vs. alcohol and also vs. the average for 18-15yr old males.



the stats are stage to appear worse than they are.
They say X% of road crash victims have dope in their system.  Sounds bad, until you discover that a) this includes passengers and b) Weed can take 30 days to be purged from the body, so they don't even need to be under the influence at the time.  


Well that is sometimes true, but it's not necessarily detectable in a roadside saliva test.  Actually it's not the case for occasional light users. It's a complex issue. It depends on your level of body fat among other things.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Apr 21st, 2011 at 10:06am

muso wrote on Apr 21st, 2011 at 8:52am:

... wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 10:55am:

Amadd wrote on Apr 18th, 2011 at 5:16pm:
Yeah I've got a sneaking suspicion that the youtube clip may be staged ;D

As for road accidents involving cannibis, I 'd like to see the stats vs. alcohol and also vs. the average for 18-15yr old males.



the stats are stage to appear worse than they are.
They say X% of road crash victims have dope in their system.  Sounds bad, until you discover that a) this includes passengers and b) Weed can take 30 days to be purged from the body, so they don't even need to be under the influence at the time.  


Well that is sometimes true, but it's not necessarily detectable in a roadside saliva test.  Actually it's not the case for occasional light users. It's a complex issue. It depends on your level of body fat among other things.



yeah, I know 30 days is at the extreme end of the scale, but seeing as how the effects last a coupla hours, even if it is detectable for just a week afterwards, it still doesn't give an accurate assessment of whether they are impaired at the time of the crash.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Apr 21st, 2011 at 12:07pm

Quote:
yeah, I know 30 days is at the extreme end of the scale, but seeing as how the effects last a coupla hours, even if it is detectable for just a week afterwards, it still doesn't give an accurate assessment of whether they are impaired at the time of the crash.


I don't know about other states, but in NSW and Vic you have blood taken after a vehicle accident resulting in an injury (even if you're uninjured and you blow a zero reading).

Roadside drug tests are only designed to detect drug use within 12 or so hours (drug type dependent) - anything longer and suddenly you have a lot of people fighting the issue in court.

Blood tests will detect use up until about 7 days. It is the blood test result that gets used in vehicle accident/injury/fatality stats. They don't differentiate between high and trace levels. Any trace then causes that accident to be one flagged as "where drug use was a factor". It doesn't matter if the person returning the positive result was fast asleep in the back of a parked vehicle that got hit by another vehicle - it still counts as an accident where drug use was a factor.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Apr 21st, 2011 at 12:19pm
In regards to vehicle accident statistics, the only state in Australia that goes to any real trouble in finding actual causes and reports them accurately is South Australia.

...well, that was the case about 4 or 5 years ago.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Thealexman. on Apr 21st, 2011 at 7:10pm
Marijuana is the best drug to cure anxiety and depression it has no side effects other than a dry mouth and and a slightly increased heart rate. Studies have also shown that it helps chemotherapy patients recover quicker and studies also show that it can actually kill cancer cells. The stereotype that people who smoke Marijuana have is completely wrong, we don't sit around and do nothing, our minds don't change for the worse. I am a student and I've been a heavy smoker for just over a year and I'm an A student, I get the odd B in English.
Marijuana kills less people a year than alcohol does with zero Marijuana related deaths and 3000 alcohol related. Why aren't smokes illegal? Thousands, no hundreds of thousands of people have died because of smoking cigarettes but they are legal. In California where only medicinal cannabis is legal the government there make 4 billion a year. If Marijuana was legal and cigarettes were banned less people would die of cancer and less people would die on the road because everyone would be going at 45kmph and nobody would get fines. LEGALISE CANNABIS IT DOES NO HARM.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Apr 21st, 2011 at 8:52pm
Back when I was a pot smoker I used to love driving stoned - or at least being in a car when stoned.

Sydney - Adelaide
Adelaide - Melbourne
Melbourne - Sydney
Sydney - Coffs
Coffs - Moree
Moree - Sydney
Sydney - Melbourne
Melbourne - Adelaide
Adelaide - Sydney

All so incredibly stoned - all such good, good times.

As for medicinal excuses for getting stoned?

Pffft. Who cares, for the bulk of the population who smoke pot, that's not the reason why they do it, so don't go fishing for excuses.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 22nd, 2011 at 7:50pm

Thealexman. wrote on Apr 21st, 2011 at 7:10pm:
Marijuana is the best drug to cure anxiety and depression it has no side effects ..................................LEGALISE CANNABIS IT DOES NO HARM.


I think I prefer to listen to what experts say:

http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishing.nsf/content/marijuana

...and try the questionnaire here:
http://ncpic.org.au/

If marijuana was as widespread as cigarette smoking, it would kill even more people.

Like tobacco, marijuana is a dangerous drug.

If it was the best drug to cure depression, it would be approved by the NH & MRC. It usually makes depression much worse.

The only people who go on about it as if it were a panacea are pot heads.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Apr 22nd, 2011 at 9:34pm
[the only people who go on about it as if were a panacea are potheads]

:D   ::) :o ::)  Please spare us your ignorance -  and your claim.
The opposite is the truth.   See no-one believes potheads eh?  
But what about about all those highly knowledgeable, credentialled and ' straight ' scientists and law enforcement experts,  world-wide- who decry the W O D !!  Who are now, and have been for 20 odd yrs calling on govt's that do persecute their citizens in such  inequitable and obsessive ways...... to think again.  Begging, basically.

Much too simplistic there er  MUSO,  and one can always choose ones experts, if one wants to support an argument  - wotever  'side' ur on.

As for the comment  'drugs or alcohol or cigarettes'   seen so often  --you want to be honest about it ???

JUST SAY DRUGS!!
Speaking of  (..sspitt.!) statisitics ........ remember Samual Clemens.

So much to say on this -  one of the stupidest 'social egineering experiments' of all time !!  The War on Drugs.!!!



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Apr 22nd, 2011 at 9:48pm

Quote:
If marijuana was as widespread as cigarette smoking, it would kill even more people


Well, no, it wouldn't.

(Unless of course you know of some common way it can kill other than by the effects it has on the respiratory system)

The volume of smoke and tar consumed by a heavy pot smoker is far less than by someone who smokes say 30 cigarettes a day.

A pot smoker isn't going to bang down down 5 cones every 45 mins to an hour (5 cones being about the same volume of smoke and tar as a cigarette).

Few pot smokers smoke pot all day every day like the ubiquitous "pot head". Smokers of cigarettes smoke from waking to sleep. For most pot smokers it's an after work thing, but for the sake of argument let's assume they sneak 4 or 5 cones in during work. You're still only looking at the equiivalent of 2 or 3 cigarettes a day.

Our psychiatric institutions aren't full cannabis induced psychosis cases - it's quite rare for that happen. It's not a case of the more pot you smoke the more likely that it is to happen.

All drugs have a saturation point. The point where it's considered to be taken up by every potential user with a community. The saturation point for cannabis is very unlikely to be anywhere near as high as nicotine because it's simply far less addictive and has a relatively long effect period.

And at just what point does a substance or activity become "dangerous"?

(and before I get accused of being a pot smoker, I'm not. The last time I tried it was years ago - I'd have to go back 20 years to when I last had any at home.)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:03am

Emma wrote on Apr 22nd, 2011 at 9:34pm:
[the only people who go on about it as if were a panacea are potheads]

:D   ::) :o ::)  Please spare us your ignorance -  and your claim.
The opposite is the truth.   See no-one believes potheads eh?  
But what about about all those highly knowledgeable, credentialled and ' straight ' scientists and law enforcement experts,  world-wide- who decry the W O D !!  Who are now, and have been for 20 odd yrs calling on govt's that do persecute their citizens in such  inequitable and obsessive ways...... to think again.  Begging, basically.



LOL. I knew I'd draw a few comments. Sure, you'll find the occasional pothead site extolling the virtues of Marijuana, but although it has some beneficial effects, the problems it causes far outweighs these. You don't have to believe me personally, there have been plenty of studies. The Yanks have done more studies than most.

Does marijuana have any medical value?


Quote:
   The Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in 1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons, the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.


http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html

Quote:
Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana
Marijuana: The Facts


As far as the road safety myths are concerned, marijuana leads to slowed thinking and slower reflexes - precisely the things that cause accidents. The car might be going 100km/hr, but their brain is only doing 20km/hr.

It rots the brain cells and is linked to heart attacks within the first hour of use.


Quote:
In Summary:

* Marijuana is a dangerous, addictive drug that poses significant health threats to users.

* Marijuana has no medical value that can't be met more effectively by legal drugs.

* Marijuana users are far more likely to use other drugs like cocaine and heroin than non-marijuana users.

* Drug legalizers use "medical marijuana" as red herring in effort to advocate broader legalization of drug use.


In other words, marijuana is a so-called "gateway drug"

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:16am
Here's a link to the executive summary of the US IOM report on marijuana.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_medical_iom_report.pdf

You will find a plethora of websites citing parts of this report out of context. Of course cannabis has proven benefits (oh....wow..... man), but these are far outweighed by the harmful effects of smoking marijuana.

The overall conclusion of every major medical authority in the world  is that it should remain illegal.

Now I've come across 'potheads' who were once respectable engineers and even doctors. After 20 years of cannabis addiction, their brains are hamburger.

I mean let's look at the downside:

  • Paranoia and other psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations with increased risk of developing schizophrenia
  • Lowered sex drive
  • Slow thinking
  • Slow reflexes
  • Reduced coordination
  • Problems concentrating
  • Reduced motivation
  • Dilated pupils
  • Bloodshot or glassy eyes
  • Dryness of the mouth
  • Increased appetite
  • Mood swings
  • Panic attacks
  • Anxiety and paranoia
  • Psychosis
  • Hallucinations
  • Delusions


Then there's suicide............

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:23am

Quote:
Our psychiatric institutions aren't full cannabis induced psychosis cases - it's quite rare for that happen. It's not a case of the more pot you smoke the more likely that it is to happen.


There are a lot of people outside psychiatric institutes whose brains are shot. Regardless of their qualifications, they are unemployable.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by helian on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:27am

muso wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:16am:
Here's a link to the executive summary of the US IOM report on marijuana.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_medical_iom_report.pdf

You will find a plethora of websites citing parts of this report out of context. Of course cannabis has proven benefits (oh....wow..... man), but these are far outweighed by the harmful effects of smoking marijuana.

The overall conclusion of every major medical authority in the world  is that it should remain illegal.

Now I've come across 'potheads' who were once respectable engineers and even doctors. After 20 years of cannabis addiction, their brains are hamburger.

I mean let's look at the downside:

  • Paranoia and other psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations with increased risk of developing schizophrenia
  • Lowered sex drive
  • Slow thinking
  • Slow reflexes
  • Reduced coordination
  • Problems concentrating
  • Reduced motivation
  • Dilated pupils
  • Bloodshot or glassy eyes
  • Dryness of the mouth
  • Increased appetite
  • Mood swings
  • Panic attacks
  • Anxiety and paranoia
  • Psychosis
  • Hallucinations
  • Delusions


Then there's suicide............

Anyone who manifests those kinds of symptoms is using pot to deal with a personality order or underlying psychiatric condition... Or they're running from something.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:37am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:27am:
Anyone who manifests those kinds of symptoms is using pot to deal with a personality order or underlying psychiatric condition... Or they're running from something.


Well, I was accused of ignorance and making unsubstantiated claims. I've provided my citations from possibly the most respected Medical Institute in the world. By comparison, anecodotal claims just don't hold water.  

Now it may well be true that casual users (those who use it a few times in a month) are less susceptible to these symptoms. I don't doubt that may be true.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:38am
This sounds like a list for alcohol:

Muso.

Quote:
Paranoia and other psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations with increased risk of developing schizophrenia
Lowered sex drive
Slow thinking
Slow reflexes
Reduced coordination
Problems concentrating
Reduced motivation
Dilated pupils
Bloodshot or glassy eyes
Dryness of the mouth
Increased appetite
Mood swings
Panic attacks
Anxiety and paranoia
Psychosis
Hallucinations
Delusions


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by helian on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:38am

muso wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:37am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:27am:
Anyone who manifests those kinds of symptoms is using pot to deal with a personality order or underlying psychiatric condition... Or they're running from something.


Well, I was accused of ignorance and making unsubstantiated claims. I've provided my citations from possibly the most respected Medical Institute in the world. By comparison, anecodotal claims just don't hold water.  

Would they be the same ones that class cannabis as a narcotic?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:43am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:38am:

muso wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:37am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:27am:
Anyone who manifests those kinds of symptoms is using pot to deal with a personality order or underlying psychiatric condition... Or they're running from something.


Well, I was accused of ignorance and making unsubstantiated claims. I've provided my citations from possibly the most respected Medical Institute in the world. By comparison, anecodotal claims just don't hold water.  

Would they be the same ones that class cannabis as a narcotic?


No - That would be the Drug Enforcement Administration. I'm quoting US departments because the Institute of Medicine that I cited is US based.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:45am

Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:38am:
This sounds like a list for alcohol:


Well I gave my source. Coincidentally I was pulled over by a cop on the way back from gym this morning. He asked me if I had had any alcoholic drinks in the past 24 hours. I replied that I hadn't had any alcoholic drinks in the past 24 years.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:50am

Life_goes_on wrote on Apr 22nd, 2011 at 9:48pm:
Well, no, it wouldn't.

(Unless of course you know of some common way it can kill other than by the effects it has on the respiratory system)

The volume of smoke and tar consumed by a heavy pot smoker is far less than by someone who smokes say 30 cigarettes a day.



Quote:
There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institute of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.

Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by helian on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:55am
From my experience, those who use pot to the point of manifesting those symptoms are already disturbed or have a predisposition towards psychosis or suffer a personality disorder. The same is true for those who overuse alcohol.

Every mind altering drug can have dangerous side effects when overused. Nitrous Oxide for example... Generally believed to be safe when used in moderation and used legally as an anaesthetic. When overused, it quickly depletes the body of Vitamin B12 causing simulations of brain damage... Never mind the actual brain damage that can occur due to oxygen deprivation.

Mind alterers like pot and alcohol can have very positive effects when used responsibly and in moderation (i.e. when not used in an attempt to evade the effects of personality disorders / psychological troubles etc).

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 9:24am

muso wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:45am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 8:38am:
This sounds like a list for alcohol:


Well I gave my source. Coincidentally I was pulled over by a cop on the way back from gym this morning. He asked me if I had had any alcoholic drinks in the past 24 hours. I replied that I hadn't had any alcoholic drinks in the past 24 years.


Yes - the cops are everywhere & always there when you don't
need them and never there when you do.

Anyway - the list you gave would be similar for alcohol.
Whenever you intefere with the workings of the brain
that list would apply.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 11:21pm
Did you know-

- that all you folk saying 'keep it illegal, pot smokers are all a-h's  and ratbags  --   tough poo "  .... are actually actively supporting massive funding for criminals, here  and overseas,   and  terrorists,.....  as a certainty.???

Do  you consider  or care about the far reaching consequences of your mindless mouthing of the status quo?  Or perhaps you rub your hands in approval and satisfaction when you hear about  a local , or national alleged 'successful' police operation against drugs.!?

(incidentally - the comments labelled  - 'from anecdotal evidence..' are such BS.)  Who are they trying to convince? Of what?

So - Illegal drugs provide FUNDs-  ie. $ - you know????  MONEY.

Funds  that are far beyond the reach of any individual country or organisation undertaking this War on Drugs (WOD), Funds which enable and arm terrorism, and organised crime, to reap all the benefits of the premium put on 'illicit' drugs.

Such FOOLS  are we.!!

Did you realise that you -
Are supporting a divisive policy which breaks up our society into opposing groups who essentially have NO understanding of each other?
But who continue to insist on their unimpeachable opinion.!!

And a policy that creates a sub-strata of people to whom prohibitionist legislation  is applied,  so that they are persecuted, hated, jailed and removed from polite people's sight. Pre- Victorian era stuff!!

Did you know?  you are totally unconcerned at the corruption of police, - federal, state, and local, and the outcomes of same.?
Perhaps I should give yous a credit - maybe you are just part of THE IGNORANT!.

Who me??? yes you.  We all live in this country, and this sick policy continues. >:(


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Apr 24th, 2011 at 12:24am
I can't help wondering when I see that reality Customs TV show callled
Border Security.
While they arrest some mule with a little package of drugs -
you can't help thinking there is someone like Robert Trimbole
importing a whole container load just down the road.
I watched the Underbelly TV series & I bet a lot of it was true.  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 24th, 2011 at 8:05am

Emma wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 11:21pm:
Did you know-

- that all you folk saying 'keep it illegal, pot smokers are all a-h's  and ratbags  --   tough poo "  .... are actually actively supporting massive funding for criminals, here  and overseas,   and  terrorists,.....  as a certainty.???

Do  you consider  or care about the far reaching consequences of your mindless mouthing of the status quo?  Or perhaps you rub your hands in approval and satisfaction when you hear about  a local , or national alleged 'successful' police operation against drugs.!?

(incidentally - the comments labelled  - 'from anecdotal evidence..' are such BS.)  Who are they trying to convince? Of what?

So - Illegal drugs provide FUNDs-  ie. $ - you know????  MONEY.

Funds  that are far beyond the reach of any individual country or organisation undertaking this War on Drugs (WOD), Funds which enable and arm terrorism, and organised crime, to reap all the benefits of the premium put on 'illicit' drugs.

Such FOOLS  are we.!!

Did you realise that you -
Are supporting a divisive policy which breaks up our society into opposing groups who essentially have NO understanding of each other?
But who continue to insist on their unimpeachable opinion.!!

And a policy that creates a sub-strata of people to whom prohibitionist legislation  is applied,  so that they are persecuted, hated, jailed and removed from polite people's sight. Pre- Victorian era stuff!!

Did you know?  you are totally unconcerned at the corruption of police, - federal, state, and local, and the outcomes of same.?
Perhaps I should give yous a credit - maybe you are just part of THE IGNORANT!.

Who me??? yes you.  We all live in this country, and this sick policy continues. >:(




Some good points there. I've always been of the opinion that the drug dealers are the ones who need to be exposed to the full force of justice, and drug users should be treated as victims/patients.  

While it's true that illegal marijuana cultivation in this country is funding organised crime on a massive scale, the question is - would legalising the drug and distributing it through proper means have any effect on that illegal process?

Well, the problem is the fact that it's a gateway drug, and people who try marijuana are more likely to try harder drugs. Now if you want to legalise these harder drugs too, it becomes a never ending spiral. Society will die from the inside out.

The experience in those parts of the world that tolerate marijuana has not been good. In Alaska, teen use of marijuana tripled when it was made legal.

In Colorado, Medical Marijuana is legal. The results of that experiment are not exactly encouraging either:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36179402/

The question is - do we want to encourage the increased use of marijuana - a substance that has been shown to cause more harm in society than good through reduced productivity, brain damage, increased accident rates and increased crime? - because total legalisation will do exactly that. In the end it will cost society.

Maybe it would temporarily reduce revenues for organised crime, but not for long - it would provide a much more relaxed and amenable market for harder drugs in the long run. From there on in, it's a continuously downhill spiral from a position of relative civilisation, with zombie-like politicians in the pockets of organised criminals passing all kinds of harmful legislation.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lisa on Apr 24th, 2011 at 6:42pm

The question is - do we want to encourage the increased use of marijuana - a substance that has been shown to cause more harm in society than good through reduced productivity, brain damage, increased accident rates and increased crime? - because total legalisation will do exactly that. In the end it will cost society.

Maybe it would temporarily reduce revenues for organised crime, but not for long - it would provide a much more relaxed and amenable market for harder drugs in the long run. From there on in, it's a continuously downhill spiral from a position of relative civilisation, with zombie-like politicians in the pockets of organised criminals passing all kinds of harmful legislation.  


- Muso

Somebody frame this post please. It makes a hell of a lot of sense!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Apr 25th, 2011 at 1:38am
Somebody-  please Burn this Shite.!!!!!

Methinks Muso is laughing at you. 8-)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Sappho on Apr 25th, 2011 at 1:52am
I think drinking has more problems associated with it than does dope smoking.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Apr 25th, 2011 at 2:22am
Yes Sappho I agree - in all fields but one.
LAW. :(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Sappho on Apr 25th, 2011 at 2:36am

Emma wrote on Apr 25th, 2011 at 2:22am:
Yes Sappho I agree - in all fields but one.
LAW. :(


A quite amazing study has come out of Europe recently on the affects to health of drinking... and we are not talking about alcohol abuse here... it shows quite clearly that alcohol is a health issue associated with causing cancer as much as it is a social issue causing increased street and family violence.

I think we need plan labels, health and social warnings, and increased taxes and liqueur licensing fees to discourage people from drinking.

Oh wait... they might turn to dope as a cheaper, mind altering alternative... scrap that.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 25th, 2011 at 12:02pm

Sappho wrote on Apr 25th, 2011 at 1:52am:
I think drinking has more problems associated with it than does dope smoking.


Yes, because more people drink than smoke dope.  

It may well be a question of everything in moderation.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lisa on Apr 27th, 2011 at 3:03pm

Thealexman. wrote on Apr 21st, 2011 at 7:10pm:
Marijuana is the best drug to cure anxiety and depression it has no side effects other than a dry mouth and and a slightly increased heart rate. Studies have also shown that it helps chemotherapy patients recover quicker and studies also show that it can actually kill cancer cells. The stereotype that people who smoke Marijuana have is completely wrong, we don't sit around and do nothing, our minds don't change for the worse. I am a student and I've been a heavy smoker for just over a year and I'm an A student, I get the odd B in English.
Marijuana kills less people a year than alcohol does with zero Marijuana related deaths and 3000 alcohol related. Why aren't smokes illegal? Thousands, no hundreds of thousands of people have died because of smoking cigarettes but they are legal. In California where only medicinal cannabis is legal the government there make 4 billion a year. If Marijuana was legal and cigarettes were banned less people would die of cancer and less people would die on the road because everyone would be going at 45kmph and nobody would get fines. LEGALISE CANNABIS IT DOES NO HARM.


Why is it that some people insist on coming in here whilst tripping?


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Apr 27th, 2011 at 3:34pm

Quote:
Well, the problem is the fact that it's a gateway drug, and people who try marijuana are more likely to try harder drugs. Now if you want to legalise these harder drugs too, it becomes a never ending spiral. Society will die from the inside out.



This reasoning is bogus on a couple of levels.
1. Those who try marijuana would have tried alcohol first.  The real 'gateway' drug, if there is such a thing, is alcohol.
2. If people who use marijuana are more likely to try other drugs, this is due to the legality of the substance, rather than any inherent property of the substance itself.  If someone is dealing in, or buying 1 illegal substance, they often branch out into others.  So when you go and buy your tinny, and your dealer also has speed on offer, the opportunity is there to try it.  But, if it's not illegal, you wouldn't get the same exposure to other substances.  You don't go to the bottle store to buy weed do you?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Apr 27th, 2011 at 4:00pm
Well said Mr Pipes!

Why is it so hard for them to understand what you have said.?
Its so obvious that making it illegal results in harm - the logic escapes me for blaming Pot for all other illicit drug use.
Thats the way it's been set up - to produce untraceable massive $$$$ - so Pot isn't enough on its own, much better to direct people on to addictive substances.  
Why are people so blind to the truth.  Propaganda, Profit.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Apr 28th, 2011 at 1:03am
Well said Muso.

I quit the Medical Industry here in Australia as it is so pathetic and unorthodox, let alone so socially stunted about having 'male' Nurses that weren't Gay. Junkies and Religious nuts have more say than Medical Staff about how to deal with drugs. ::)
Without a doubt, Pot will be made legal and losers like Jalane will have the last laugh ...like Smeagol/Gollum getting his hands upon his "preciousssss" finally.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Apr 28th, 2011 at 12:42pm

Quote:
The question is - do we want to encourage the increased use of marijuana - a substance that has been shown to cause more harm in society than good through reduced productivity, brain damage, increased accident rates and increased crime? - because total legalisation will do exactly that. In the end it will cost society.

Maybe it would temporarily reduce revenues for organised crime, but not for long - it would provide a much more relaxed and amenable market for harder drugs in the long run. From there on in, it's a continuously downhill spiral from a position of relative civilisation, with zombie-like politicians in the pockets of organised criminals passing all kinds of harmful legislation.  

- Muso

Somebody frame this post please. It makes a hell of a lot of sense!


All that it needs is relative facts to back it up...plenty of space below...

That's a downright lie.ii

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 28th, 2011 at 3:07pm

Emma wrote on Apr 27th, 2011 at 4:00pm:
Well said Mr Pipes!

Why is it so hard for them to understand what you have said.?
Its so obvious that making it illegal results in harm - the logic escapes me for blaming Pot for all other illicit drug use.
Thats the way it's been set up - to produce untraceable massive $$$$ - so Pot isn't enough on its own, much better to direct people on to addictive substances.  
Why are people so blind to the truth.  Propaganda, Profit.

...addiction.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Apr 28th, 2011 at 3:12pm

muso wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 3:07pm:

Emma wrote on Apr 27th, 2011 at 4:00pm:
Well said Mr Pipes!

Why is it so hard for them to understand what you have said.?
Its so obvious that making it illegal results in harm - the logic escapes me for blaming Pot for all other illicit drug use.
Thats the way it's been set up - to produce untraceable massive $$$$ - so Pot isn't enough on its own, much better to direct people on to addictive substances.  
Why are people so blind to the truth.  Propaganda, Profit.

...addiction.



Where does dope rate on the addiction-o-meter?  I'd say somewhere above exercise and below Junk food.  It's not a big issue.
Please please PLEAAASE don't make the folly of lumping all drugs together, as if they all have the same effects.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 28th, 2011 at 4:15pm

... wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 3:12pm:
Where does dope rate on the addiction-o-meter?  I'd say somewhere above exercise and below Junk food.  It's not a big issue.
Please please PLEAAASE don't make the folly of lumping all drugs together, as if they all have the same effects.


Of course it's addictive.

I guess I was replying to Jalane, who admitted to being a heavy user. According to this NIDA Study (US) it shows the same withdrawal pattern as nicotine.

Jalane - Just a quick question - Could you easily stop using marijuana for a month right now?

http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/marijuana/marijuana4.html#addictive


Quote:
Is Marijuana Addictive?

Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction; that is, people have difficulty controlling their drug use and cannot stop even though it interferes with many aspects of their lives. It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it. The number goes up to about 1 in 6 in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25-50 percent among daily users. Moreover, a study of over 300 fraternal and identical twin pairs found that the twin who had used marijuana before the age of 17 had elevated rates of other drug use and drug problems later on, compared with their twin who did not use before age 17.

According to the 2008 NSDUH, marijuana accounted for 4.2 million of the estimated 7 million Americans dependent on or abusing illicit drugs. In 2008, approximately 15 percent of people entering drug abuse treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse; 61 percent of persons under 15 reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse, as did 56 percent of those 15 to 19 years old.

Marijuana addiction is also linked to a withdrawal syndrome similar to that of nicotine withdrawal, which can make it hard to quit. People trying to quit report irritability, sleeping difficulties, craving, and anxiety. They also show increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking approximately 1 week after they last used the drug.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Apr 28th, 2011 at 5:59pm

Quote:
Of course it's addictive.


And not all addictions are equal. They can range from extremely mild to hardcore. Even the definition of what is actually an "addiction" is open to debate.

Pot is at the lower end of the scale.

Go to a proper addiction specialist (as in a proper doctor - not some git at a so-called "rehab" centre) and declare you're addicted to pot. Odds on he or she won't be suggesting they see you again.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Apr 28th, 2011 at 6:17pm

Quote:
Go to a proper addiction specialist (as in a proper doctor - not some git at a so-called "rehab" centre) and declare you're addicted to pot. Odds on he or she won't be suggesting they see you again.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWQM6sOsd5k

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 28th, 2011 at 7:24pm

Life_goes_on wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 5:59pm:

Quote:
Of course it's addictive.


And not all addictions are equal. They can range from extremely mild to hardcore. Even the definition of what is actually an "addiction" is open to debate.

Pot is at the lower end of the scale.

Go to a proper addiction specialist (as in a proper doctor - not some git at a so-called "rehab" centre) and declare you're addicted to pot. Odds on he or she won't be suggesting they see you again.


I very much doubt that.  A doctor wouldn't turn you away for nicotine addiction either. If you have a significant cannabis addiction, the doctor will probably prescribe anti-depressants or benzodiazepine or both.

I agree that some people are more affected than others.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Apr 28th, 2011 at 7:47pm

Quote:
I very much doubt that.  A doctor wouldn't turn you away for nicotine addiction either. If you have a significant cannabis addiction, the doctor will probably prescribe anti-depressants or benzodiazepine or both.


I didn't say the doctor would turn you away - and as far as nicotine addiction goes they will definitely want to follow up on your treatment.
All I said it would be a see you once experience.

They wouldn't prescribe you antidepressants because by the time they have kicked in, any withdrawal symptoms would be long gone. They definitely wouldn't prescribe you benzos - which are far more addictive and debilitating than cannabis. At best you'd be handed half a strip of Serapax.

They don't even prescribe benzos for heroin withdrawals or heroin reduction. The dangers outweigh the benefits.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Apr 28th, 2011 at 8:25pm

Quote:
They don't even prescribe benzos for heroin withdrawals or heroin reduction. The dangers outweigh the benefits.


Actually, I'll qualify that. They will presribe them after a reasonable period - say after a year of presenting as being stable. But they will mix them up as much as they can, say three weeks on benzos then three weeks on something else. But it all depends on both the patient and the doctor.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Apr 28th, 2011 at 9:03pm
Good to hear all these opinions being expressed. Rarely have I enjoyed a natter so much.  No guys, not nutter - natter...  although that may also apply. :)

Addiction can indeed be relative to the drug of choice.... others might say a person had an 'addictive personality' -  the actual drug is irrelevant, except in its specific effects upon on the user. Caused by it's toxicity, for example,  or its status in law.


Said a mouthful haven't you Muso. Bit sad you can only, in the end, fall back on personal insult and aspersions.!! Dear dear, get a grip. :-?

FYI  have had a busy day - so haven't read most of the posts, so my reply is really to you - Loser!. ;D


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Apr 28th, 2011 at 10:00pm
I don't think there's any call to abuse Muso.

As far as this topic goes, I find that there's little I agree with him with.

But that doesn't mean he deserves any abuse. This is the net afterall. The bulk of opinion on here is nonsense which is just too easily walked away from to warrant any need to endure even the slightest raising of your blood pressure.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Apr 28th, 2011 at 10:03pm
Oh yeah

s'cuse me while I kiss the sky!!

Muso asked also - sorry , been busy, "could I stop smoking Pot ..etc " ??

Based on the assumptions you have made in your replies, and elucidated in the post to which I reply -   100% certain . As experience has shown, Pot is the smallest of the drug hassles facing our society today.

Give it a rest, and spend all those Billions of $ on Positive action for the good of the common weal.
::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Apr 28th, 2011 at 10:11pm
Reply to Life Goes On  
-
Sorry but he has already called me a loser  - a drug dealer - (both incorrect by the way)  so  the lowest I will go is to reply in kind.

sorry  can't be bothered spending too much time on learning how most effectively to use Quotes etc..
 So Life Goes on

Why aren't you telling him off?  ?  ::)
Does he have a problem? need protecting?

Life goes on.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Apr 28th, 2011 at 10:13pm

Quote:
Based on the assumptions you have made in your replies, and elucidated in the post to which I reply -   100% certain . As experience has shown, Pot is the smallest of the drug hassles facing our society today.


I dunno about the smallest of drug hassles. I have a pretty hardcore problem with Vietnamese Pork Rolls - so much so I'm seriously considering spending over $100 on fuel and the best part of an entire day to go and scratch my itch as far as that little high goes.

But in regards to your pot smoking, didn't you say a couple of days ago that you haven't smoked it in years?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Apr 28th, 2011 at 10:19pm
Personally, I could care less if other people fall in a screaming heap when it comes to their use of illicit drugs. As far as I'm concerned, society is kicking along nicely as it is and there's both an upside and downside to the relaxation of the current drug laws.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Apr 28th, 2011 at 10:21pm
Now you just have me confused.

Seriously, I'm not wanting any drama about this. Just relax.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Apr 29th, 2011 at 2:02am
How many movies does it have to take to get the point across?
How many Medics does it take to get the point across?
How many stories, laws and more, does it take?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLvIFRNbqOs

I like this Song (Smeagol's Song), it reminds me of my best friend who, over the years has fallen from his personal grace and the grace of society ...and now is homeless, lost and dying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYfoeBOhTU&feature=related

He's after the "precious" as well and look where its leading him.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Apr 29th, 2011 at 5:23am
Where are you Life Goes On?

Settle down - I don't have a problem with this topic. or anyone's comments.  I don't know why you are confused. :-?
People want to haggle? good - nothing like a good argu...   discussion about important issues. I may not appreciate some comments, but that's what this is about no?  Communication.  


I didn't say a couple of days ago that I hadn't smoked Pot for years. That must have been someone else.

I don't comment as a rule on that - at least not intentionally, ..more about the topic,..and I have related some family history of cancer....(not on this thread)... so tell me
whats got you confused.?
people are free to, and do, assume what they may., right or wrong,
as evidenced by Jasigns recent comment(s).

Like his questions - forget the vids -( except they seem to be his reality-)
How many Movies, Medics, Stories, laws and more, does it take?

Are you serious Jasign?
That's all I wish to say. ::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 29th, 2011 at 9:27am

Life_goes_on wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 10:00pm:
I don't think there's any call to abuse Muso.

As far as this topic goes, I find that there's little I agree with him with.

But that doesn't mean he deserves any abuse. This is the net afterall. The bulk of opinion on here is nonsense which is just too easily walked away from to warrant any need to endure even the slightest raising of your blood pressure.


I probably deserve it.

Jalane,

I just asked you the question if you could stop for a month. I certainly never called you a dealer, but I might have suggested that you are addicted. Plenty of people are addicted to cigarettes, but maybe it's bad taste to suggest it to an individual. It wasn't me who called you a loser either (scroll back and check).

This is all intended to be a bit of friendly banter. I'm just challenging some of the views put forward, based on real medical research for a change.

So don't take offense. You're right - it has been an interesting natter. I obviously touched a nerve, but I don't think I resorted to any personal insults.


Quote:
Are you serious Jasign?
That's all I wish to say. ::)


Jasignature makes some pretty off-beat comments sometimes.  He's a funny guy. One of Shakespeare's jesters.  Don't take him the wrong way.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Apr 29th, 2011 at 10:17am

muso wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 7:24pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 5:59pm:

Quote:
Of course it's addictive.


And not all addictions are equal. They can range from extremely mild to hardcore. Even the definition of what is actually an "addiction" is open to debate.

Pot is at the lower end of the scale.

Go to a proper addiction specialist (as in a proper doctor - not some git at a so-called "rehab" centre) and declare you're addicted to pot. Odds on he or she won't be suggesting they see you again.


I very much doubt that.  A doctor wouldn't turn you away for nicotine addiction either. If you have a significant cannabis addiction, the doctor will probably prescribe anti-depressants or benzodiazepine or both.

I agree that some people are more affected than others.



WOW...and you're completely fine with prescribing anti-depressants to replace cannabis????  That is incredible - don't worry about the potential for harm, just so long as it's been deemed legal?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 29th, 2011 at 10:27am

... wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 10:17am:
WOW...and you're completely fine with prescribing anti-depressants to replace cannabis????  That is incredible - don't worry about the potential for harm, just so long as it's been deemed legal?


Hang on there just a minute. I've never heard a doctor say anything like this yet:


Quote:
Go to a street dealer and buy as much benzodiazepine as you want, don't worry about the fact that it might have harmful fillers or that quality control is non existent. Make up your own mind how much to take.


If you know a doctor that said something like that, then I'd agree that there is much more potential harm in that approach than in buying marijuana off the street. Absolutely no doubt about it.

However if the doctor gives you a controlled prescription and says - take one per day after meals, well the risk is much lower.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Apr 29th, 2011 at 10:43am

muso wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 10:27am:

... wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 10:17am:
WOW...and you're completely fine with prescribing anti-depressants to replace cannabis????  That is incredible - don't worry about the potential for harm, just so long as it's been deemed legal?


Hang on there just a minute. I've never heard a doctor say anything like this yet:


Quote:
Go to a street dealer and buy as much benzodiazepine as you want, don't worry about the fact that it might have harmful fillers or that quality control is non existent. Make up your own mind how much to take.


If you know a doctor that said something like that, then I'd agree that there is much more potential harm in that approach than in buying marijuana off the street. Absolutely no doubt about it.

However if the doctor gives you a controlled prescription and says - take one per day after meals, well the risk is much lower.



But the 'much lower' risk is still much higher than that of weed.  The reason why the more harmful of the 2 is legal, is that the worlds largest corporations can patent, and therefore reap huge profits from the sale of one and not the other.


Quote:
What's worse – heroin or amphetamine? And are they worse than alcohol and tobacco, which affects the health of far greater numbers of people.

In fact, how do you measure the harm of a drug? That's a question UK researchers found themselves asking when they set out to rate a range of commonly used recreational drugs – some legal, others not – to rate them in order of the harm they cause to users and to those around them.

They looked at 14 compounds: heroin, cocaine, alcohol, barbiturates, amphetamine, methadone, benzodiazepines, solvents, buprenorphine, tobacco, ecstasy, cannabis, LSD, and steroids.

They asked a range of experts – doctors, psychiatrists, chemists, police, lawyers and others – to rate these drugs individually in various categories of harm. The first was physical harm to the user – whether they caused illness and disease. The second was whether the drug would lead to addiction and dependence; and the third was the capacity for harm to others; family, community, and society.

Varieties of harm
Those drugs that are injected like heroin, amphetamines cause a lot of physical harm because of the risk of overdose and spread of blood borne viruses like HIV, hepatitis B and C. Other dugs like tobacco don't have an overdose or HIV risk, but caused physical harm over the long term. Some of the newer party drugs such as ecstasy or MDMA are so new their long term health effects aren't known.

With some drugs, the physical harm is compounded by the fact that the drug is addictive and the person keeps using it. Some require higher and higher doses to achieve the same effect, and/or cause withdrawal symptoms when the drug is stopped; heroin, benzodiazepines and nicotine were in this category, while LSD was much less addictive.

Drugs also vary in their capacity to cause harm to others. Alcohol often leads to violent behaviour, injuries and accidents and is a major cause of damage to family and social life. Alcohol and nicotine, being so widely used and so destructive to health over long periods of heavy use, are immensely costly to society. (Tobacco and alcohol together account for about 90 per cent of all drug-related deaths.) Illegal drugs like ecstasy, amphetamine and heroin may involve the user in criminal activity and its consequences.

And the winner was..
Rating these drugs wasn't easy because of the wide variations of degrees of harm in different categories – some drugs caused a lot of harm in one category but not another.

But when it came to all the harm factors considered together, heroin and cocaine were right at the top of the list; alcohol, tobacco, amphetamines and benzodiazepines fairly high; cannabis further down; and LSD and ecstasy towards the bottom.
So what's the point of all this?

The researchers weren't trying to justify the use of one drug over another. What they were trying to do was encourage police and law-makers to be a bit more rational about classifying drugs on the basis of harm (they found there wasn't much rationale in existing 'dangerous drugs' classifications in the UK at least).

But the findings are also a useful guide for doctors, counsellors, family and others working in drug treatment to help them devise harm minimisation strategies, especially when there's a scarcity of one type of drug and users switch to another with a different set of risks.

http://www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/stories/2007/04/05/1884640.htm

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 29th, 2011 at 2:03pm
A drug is likely to be more harmful to persons around the user, and society in general if its use is more prevalent. That's why alcohol is so harmful. More people use it.


Quote:
But the 'much lower' risk is still much higher than that of weed.  The reason why the more harmful of the 2 is legal, is that the worlds largest corporations can patent, and therefore reap huge profits from the sale of one and not the other.


A medically supervised course of benzodiazepine at a prescribed dosage is more harmful than buying grass off the street not knowing if it's pure hydroponically grown  containing anything from 3% to 22% active ingredient or otherwise? Total horsefeathers.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Apr 29th, 2011 at 2:16pm

muso wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 2:03pm:
A drug is likely to be more harmful to persons around the user, and society in general if its use is more prevalent. That's why alcohol is so harmful. More people use it.



yes, and no.

I'm not denying that alcohol is far more widely used, and this does lead to higher levels of harm attributed to it.  However, you couldn't argue that this is the ONLY reason for the huge amount of harm it causes - the fact is it's an incredibly harmful substance.  It's addictive, you can OD, and you're highly susceptible to acts of stupidity and accidents.

Smoke 10 cones (alot by anyones standard) and see how you feel the next day, and more importantly, what trouble you caused for others while under the influence.  Then compare that to how you feel after drinking 10 pints, and all the poo you got upto and grief you caused others.  Alcohol won't compare favourably....nor will it when looking at long term effects of the 2.

By all measures, cannabis is low risk and has low potential for harm.  brush it off as conspiracy theory if you must, but I firmly believe the legal status of cannabis is almost entirely due to the power of the almighty dollar, rather than a health issue.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Apr 29th, 2011 at 2:18pm

muso wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 2:03pm:
A drug is likely to be more harmful to persons around the user, and society in general if its use is more prevalent. That's why alcohol is so harmful. More people use it.


Quote:
But the 'much lower' risk is still much higher than that of weed.  The reason why the more harmful of the 2 is legal, is that the worlds largest corporations can patent, and therefore reap huge profits from the sale of one and not the other.


A medically supervised course of benzodiazepine at a prescribed dosage is more harmful than buying grass off the street not knowing if it's pure hydroponically grown  containing anything from 3% to 22% active ingredient or otherwise? Total horsefeathers.



Only someone with no knowledge would say that.  Sorry mate, but it's incredibly easy to measure your dose...and even if you wanted to go wild and smoke far, far Faaaar more than you should, your chance of OD is still precisely zero.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Apr 29th, 2011 at 9:41pm
First -
Must apologise to Muso-  :-[
not you- no it was Jasignature who called me a loser. And can't find the one where I was called a drug-dealer.  Likely the same source yeah?

Have been following what Wes Pipes and you Muso are discussing -  
and  Mr Pipes has it again - sorry Muso.

You sound like a person who's views formed from the outside - looking in- so to speak.
 No offense, just you sound like a very medical-establishment thinker - even if you don't work medically now.

I've seen it from both sides -

we're talking here about one of the MOST important divisions in our society.

Personally I'd prefer tolerance and equity - but I do understand  why that seems less important to you than supporting the present status quo.

So no doubt about it - Mr Pipes holds the strongest ground.!! :)

Onward onward on this WOD.  I mean this WOWOD!!?? ;D
Get it??? :-*

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 29th, 2011 at 10:15pm

... wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 2:18pm:
Only someone with no knowledge would say that.  Sorry mate, but it's incredibly easy to measure your dose...and even if you wanted to go wild and smoke far, far Faaaar more than you should, your chance of OD is still precisely zero.


I've never had any contact with marijuana apart from organising programs for random testing.

I hold to the medical research because they are probably a lot more qualified and a lot more impartial than the average user who obviously would do anything to perpetuate the myth that it's harmless.

Again:


Quote:
There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institute of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.


So if you smoke five joints per night, then in terms of risk, that's like smoking 7 packs of cigarettes every day. If you smoke pot heavily for a number of years, I'm sorry but people will notice the symptoms. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

Another statement of risk:


Quote:
Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.


Now I'd eat seafood from Japan right now, but there is absolutely no way that I would smoke tobacco, and smokers are not welcome in my house. Let's leave it at that.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Apr 30th, 2011 at 6:26am
I'm sorry Jalane,
didn't realise you were a Computer
and needed the information punched into you.

...as a once Privatised Nurse, its amazing how many drug-addicts ran back to the comfort of the Public system, when they had male Nurses like me who really did "sound up as if we had a pair" - didn't put up with their crap and squeezed the living hell out of them ...along with the money that they paid us to do such a professional job.
I've seen too many innocent people being killed due to the actions of drug and alcohol users to put up with such 'excuses'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntK7iGmAwTc

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Apr 30th, 2011 at 6:40am
I often say that the Music Industry has a 'drug' problem,
much like the Religious Industry has a 'gun' problem.
Not all musos are like that - some recognise that the music itself is the 'recreation'.

Drugs are there for a purpose ...not recreation or convenience of boredom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJIjWlLa8MU

John Lennon: Obviously for this drug-addict, the world was never good enough for him ...no wonder he was put out of his misery one day. (and yes, I've seen the little cave he hid in at Kathmandu and possibly came up with the words "Imagine there's no people">?)

I

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 30th, 2011 at 8:13am

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Apr 30th, 2011 at 6:40am:
I often say that the Music Industry has a 'drug' problem,
much like the Religious Industry has a 'gun' problem.


I thought it was an alcohol problem. We can thank the missionaries for bringing grog to the aborigines.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Apr 30th, 2011 at 10:42am
Yes, poor buggers. A good show about a Tribe down in Victoria that didn't do grog - in fact they did everything that was required of them in regards to living up to all expectations from society/church/etc.
When it came to a point that their should fullfill their role, they were screwed over and betrayed because ...they were simply 'aboriginal' and that just wasn't good enough. No-one wanted to serve under aboriginals who could do a better job than them.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Apr 30th, 2011 at 9:28pm
Alcohol and it's effects upon the oldest Australians is surely worthy of it's own thread. The "Howard Yrs - the Interventions..etc" .
Not on this topic.

Altho u could, and perhaps should,  ask,  '...if Pot was able to be grown for personal use, ( and had been for say 10 yrs)  do you think the poison of alcoholism, petrol and glue- sniffing etc would be so prevalent, in these isolated communities. Or present at all, except in isolated incidents?"
??
What u say ? Muso. You're the expert yeah?  

As for Jasign   - your comments just went way over my head.  Maybe if I did, it might make some sense, but I don't view your vid's.  Sorry about that. :D


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Apr 30th, 2011 at 10:33pm
Just hope Hippy Jalane,
that they don't legalise the Ferals.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 30th, 2011 at 10:49pm

Emma wrote on Apr 30th, 2011 at 9:28pm:
What u say ? Muso. You're the expert yeah?  


No, I'm not an expert. I just refer to Medical Research conducted by experts, because it makes more sense that speaking to people with a vested interest in legalising marijuana.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Apr 30th, 2011 at 11:27pm
'legalise the Ferals?' -  Please explain?!??  ;D

Can't address the question eh?

At least not and continue to promote your anti status. Not to worry. Mostly I think we understand. So hard to let go of one's ingrained prejudices.  

Saddest of all is when one must resort to quoting (spewing) Statistics.!!As I find myself constantly reminding folk -  to paraphrase S Clemens -  there are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

That all you can manage is blatant, or implied, denigration ( Not that I think being a Hippy is bad, just - I'm not)  suggests you are running out of  real responses.

I could call Muso a Meathead from the Morgue
I could call Jasignature a Whining One-eyed Deadhead

And- I've been called HIPPY, so whats so bad?  ( see that as no insult ) - with PRIDE.  Of course that WAS 35 yrs ago.  Surprised you still consider it has some perjorative context.  Not too creative hmm? Living in the Past ?

Oh - and the Ferals?  send 'em to me for education yeah?
8-) 8-) ::)







Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 1st, 2011 at 10:46am

Emma wrote on Apr 30th, 2011 at 11:27pm:
I could call Muso a Meathead from the Morgue
I could call Jasignature a Whining One-eyed Deadhead


Resorting to personal insults is evidence of losing the argument.  Why are you starting to call me names? I haven't called you any names?

Feral has a double meaning. I remember a number of contracts (for a large corporation) that were under tender, and those tendering were in an auditorium at a pre-tender information session. (This was near Rockhampton, Queensland) A representative from a pest control company asked "Do you get many ferals around here"

The reply  "No - they're all mostly in Mount Morgan" got a big laugh.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on May 2nd, 2011 at 1:04am
Well I would call you a 'Drug Pusher' because you ain't no Medic for starters Jalane, but that would just cut this Topic short now wouldn't it.

...its amazing how many 'laws' protect drug abusers like Jalane from orthodox and hardline Medical approaches, in this country.

So I think I'll end my effort in this discussion with this clip: Bug Powder Dust ...because we know that Jalane would like that legalised too. ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trbvx1U6Ry8

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 2nd, 2011 at 4:11am

So serious -you 2  :-? 8-)

- I said I could call you a 'meathead from ...'  I said I could call Jasign '..a whining deadhead,'  - I  didn't actually say you were!!!
 IT was an ILLUSTRATION, dear boys, of how ludicrous this to-and-fro has become - calling names, posting (unseen by me) vids, expressing over and over the same 'stuff'.
Regardless of your qualifications, quotes etc I'm of the view that you are protesting WAY too much. Whats the rub?
WOD is kaput - should have been kaput - should never have reached such an extreme situation.   The reason it has is obvious - $$$$$$$$$$$$. and all the corruption it engenders.
Legalisation Is about the direction and well-being of our society, not the individual well-being of any one person, and truly has been since the beginning of Prohibition.   Courtesy, by the way, of the United States, and it's Director of the Agency - good ole J Edgar Hoover.  The attempt to ban grog failed, thereby removing massive sources of income from the Mafia et al, and 'balance' required a substitute.  tadaaaa!

AND here we are. All arguments about keeping the status quo, for reasons medical or whatever,  just don't even approach the deeper, societal issues. Don't you SEE??
'cos a cross-dressing spook control freak with virtually limitless power needed to appease his secret criminal affiliates, we live in the world as we know it today.
And you say thats GOOD?
Well

Thats me - over and out.
>:( >:(



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on May 2nd, 2011 at 11:43am

muso wrote on Apr 30th, 2011 at 10:49pm:

Emma wrote on Apr 30th, 2011 at 9:28pm:
What u say ? Muso. You're the expert yeah?  


No, I'm not an expert. I just refer to Medical Research conducted by experts, because it makes more sense that speaking to people with a vested interest in legalising marijuana.



Waaay back at the start of this thread, I stated I didn't want marijuana legalised, so I hope you're not dismissing me as a 'vested interest'.  Just a realist.

I don't belive it is 'harmless' as such, but that the harm it can do is very minor.  Sure it'll harm your motivation if used regularly, but this is reversible within a very short timeframe of abstaining.  The very minor propeties of 'addictiveness' mean that this is easly acheived.  The only other harm that I can think of is from smoking it - which is easily overcome by vaporising or eating it instead.  The problems linked to alcohol, such as assaults and accidents are vastly lower with weed - except when dope is used in conjunction with alcohol.  


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on May 2nd, 2011 at 3:21pm

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Apr 30th, 2011 at 6:26am:
I'm sorry Jalane,
didn't realise you were a Computer
and needed the information punched into you.

...as a once Privatised Nurse, its amazing how many drug-addicts ran back to the comfort of the Public system, when they had male Nurses like me who really did "sound up as if we had a pair" - didn't put up with their crap and squeezed the living hell out of them ...along with the money that they paid us to do such a professional job.
I've seen too many innocent people being killed due to the actions of drug and alcohol users to put up with such 'excuses'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntK7iGmAwTc



I call BS.
Even better, sanctimonious, self righteous BS.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lisa on May 2nd, 2011 at 8:34pm
Forget pot!

If this topic is anything to go by .. we ought to start looking at pots and kettles.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 2nd, 2011 at 8:54pm

Emma wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 4:11am:
AND here we are. All arguments about keeping the status quo, for reasons medical or whatever,  just don't even approach the deeper, societal issues. Don't you SEE??
'cos a cross-dressing spook control freak with virtually limitless power needed to appease his secret criminal affiliates, we live in the world as we know it today.
And you say thats GOOD?
Well


I think I see. Could you read that in the morning and translate it into English for me?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:20pm
Why don't you read it in the morning and translate it into Muso.

::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 2nd, 2011 at 9:26pm
And Lisa - I'd have to say for once you said something approaching sentience.!!!

" ..we ought to start looking at pots and kettles."

Its easy when you think about it.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on May 5th, 2011 at 2:07pm

Quote:
A desperate US father gave his son cannabis oil to ease the pain of a life-threatening tumour, and now credits the drug with helping save his son's life, reports the Daily Mail.
Shortly before his second birthday, Cash Hyde was diagnosed with a serious brain tumour.

For six weeks Cash was regularly misdiagnosed with glandular fever, but looking at his ill son, his father Mike Hyde knew it was worse.

"It feels like he's dying in my arms," said Mr Hyde. "We need to take him somewhere else."

Doctors did a CAT scan and found a 4.5cm tumour wrapped around Cash's optic nerve.

They were able to remove just ten per cent of the growth in surgery and the toddler had to undergo severe chemotherapy to reduce the rest of it.


Cash's terrified parents, Mike and Kalli from Missoula, Montana, were repeatedly told their son would probably die.

The treatment had drastic side effects on Cash, including seizures and a blood infection, and left him so weak he could not lift his head.

Mr Hyde said his son had no will to eat for months, and was too sick to eat solid foods for 40 days.

As he watched his son dying before his eyes, the desperate father decided to look for another solution - medical marijuana.

Cash's doctors refused to even discuss the option with Mr Hyde, so he got authorisation from somewhere else.

Asking the doctors to wean Cash off the strong anti-nausea drugs, Mr Hyde secretly administered small doses of cannabis oil through his son's feeding tube.

The effect was almost instant.

"He hadn't eaten a thing in 40 days - and, it was really incredible to watch him take a bite of a piece of cheese. It shows that he wants to live."

Cash went through his last bout of chemotherapy with no anti-nausea medication.

Mr Hyde said the doctors were amazed.

"I wanted to tell them 'hey, he's on cannabis oil' but I was afraid they'd take it away from him."

Cash is now back home and cancer free, playing with his older brother Colty.

Medical marijuana is legal in some US states including Montana, but its use for children is extremely rare.

The US federal government and states regularly clash over differing laws regarding the medical use of the drug.

Mr Hyde told local TV news station KXLY "It's very controversial, it's very scary. But, there's nothing more scary than losing your child."


http://www.news.com.au/world/pot-cured-brain-cancer-toddler-cash-hydes-father-gave-him-cannabis-oil-to-treat-tumour/story-e6frfkz0-1226050296628


OK, so the report is written a bit crappily (as is par for the course on news.com) The weed didn't 'cure' the brain tumour as is rpeorted, but it is one of, if not THE best appetite stimulants around.  You can't fight if you have no energy, so it may very well have been the differnce between life and death.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 5th, 2011 at 6:26pm
So Mr Pipes -  waay back you said you were against legalisation.

Is that still the case? :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on May 6th, 2011 at 10:48am

Emma wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 6:26pm:
So Mr Pipes -  waay back you said you were against legalisation.

Is that still the case? :)



Yep, because with legalisation comes heavy taxation, and even heavier penalties for those caught 'evading tax' a.k.a growing their own.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 6th, 2011 at 11:34am

... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 2:07pm:
OK, so the report is written a bit crappily (as is par for the course on news.com) The weed didn't 'cure' the brain tumour as is rpeorted, but it is one of, if not THE best appetite stimulants around.  You can't fight if you have no energy, so it may very well have been the differnce between life and death.


Poppycock. Any of the tetracyclic antidepressants such as Mazindol or Amoxapine, or even Chlorpromazine are far more effective than smoking weed.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on May 6th, 2011 at 11:37am

muso wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 11:34am:

... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 2:07pm:
OK, so the report is written a bit crappily (as is par for the course on news.com) The weed didn't 'cure' the brain tumour as is rpeorted, but it is one of, if not THE best appetite stimulants around.  You can't fight if you have no energy, so it may very well have been the differnce between life and death.


Poppycock. Any of the tetracyclic antidepressants such as Mazindol or Amoxapine, or even Chlorpromazine are far more effective than smoking weed.



LOL.  err OK, and they sound so cheap and readily available.

Have many side effects do they?

Your not prepared to give an inch are you?  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 6th, 2011 at 1:48pm
Chlorpromazine should be cheap. It costs less than paracetamol to manufacture. I hear that 4 kilograms of pot can cost you 20 years of your life in some parts of the world.  :P

You know about Victa's mower that they brought out in 2005? The Victa Corby?  It takes 4 kg of grass, and it's guaranteed for 20 years.

- or the new marijuana scented perfume ? Schapelle No. 4

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 6th, 2011 at 11:01pm
yep that sure is funny.!! ;D >:(

Mr Pipes in more worried about TAXATION.!!??

Hmmm.  Thats another view Mr Pipes!  But paying a bit of honest tax - or levy is way better than whats happening now.  Unless of course, you've never been caught.!!

"cos you know, in Tax Law, even illegal earnings are taxable, and if you declared it as income, you could , in Law , claim deductions.!!  All that fish emulsion, bright lights, seed trays  whatever - Nothing to bar them as tax deductions, as far as I can see, especially if they are replacing worn out assets.  So where's the rub.??  You 'd rather have people go to prison, or perdition, than pay a bit of honest tax??? :P


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 8th, 2011 at 10:00pm
no reply  eh?

I'm beginning to get reinforced in my thought that I'm the Queen of the Last Word - something that seemed to occur reasonably often on the only other thread not subject to ABC control. , that I've posted to - Beyond.  Altho I shut a few d brains up on ABC as well.

Wanna argue?  
No?

I'd say therefore  - the question is answered, and the answer is YES. :P

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on May 9th, 2011 at 1:24am
I left the Medical Industry
because I was tired of Australia's focus upon taking Medical advice
from two nations that were more apt at winning wars, let alone practicing Politics.
USA and UK
...just because they spoke the same language.
(...with many nations speaking English, it goes to say it might also be due to 'racial' relations ::))

So thats why you will have the last word here in Australia Jalane.

I would like to offer this to show that I'm not naive with bias
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIAiHJLwmMY&feature=fvwrel
...and my 'last word' on this is that the Taliban of Afghanistan legalised and even religiousised the use of Heroine.
It also became one of the biggest sellers of the drug - it had become a heroine nation.

So I just try to live a healthy lifestyle nowadays and watch all the zombies, ghouls and mentally sunny-side-up dopes wonder why I don't give a lab rats anymore.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 9th, 2011 at 8:39am

Emma wrote on May 8th, 2011 at 10:00pm:
no reply  eh?

I'm beginning to get reinforced in my thought that I'm the Queen of the Last Word - something that seemed to occur reasonably often on the only other thread not subject to ABC control. , that I've posted to - Beyond.  Altho I shut a few d brains up on ABC as well.

Wanna argue?  
No?

I'd say therefore  - the question is answered, and the answer is YES. :P


In terms of political parties and their policies, I would add - just after hell freezes over.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on May 9th, 2011 at 11:41am

Emma wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 11:01pm:
yep that sure is funny.!! ;D >:(

Mr Pipes in more worried about TAXATION.!!??

Hmmm.  Thats another view Mr Pipes!  But paying a bit of honest tax - or levy is way better than whats happening now.  Unless of course, you've never been caught.!!

"cos you know, in Tax Law, even illegal earnings are taxable, and if you declared it as income, you could , in Law , claim deductions.!!  All that fish emulsion, bright lights, seed trays  whatever - Nothing to bar them as tax deductions, as far as I can see, especially if they are replacing worn out assets.  So where's the rub.??  You 'd rather have people go to prison, or perdition, than pay a bit of honest tax??? :P



People don't go to prison for growing for personal use, it's a meagre fine, unless you're growing hundreds of thousands of $$$ worth.

Penalties for 'tax evasion' are far higher than penalties for growing a couple of plants for personal use, and I think it's pretty sad that people would have the book thrown at them for simply taking care of their own habit.

Think about it - would you rather use your own product (which you can control) at a cost of $0.00, or have to buy a product with unknown properties - paying the growers, distributors, retailers and of course, the government?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 9th, 2011 at 10:24pm
[b]"People don't go to prison for growing for personal use, it's a meagre fine, unless you're growing hundreds of thousands of $$$ worth.

Penalties for 'tax evasion' are far higher than penalties for growing a couple of plants for personal use, and I think it's pretty sad that people would have the book thrown at them for simply taking care of their own habit."
[/b]You think it's sad.  I think it's sad.
OK... so a bit of linguistic largesse on  my part,  but - I'd agree with all you said
except that at heart, the people who do get into police trouble are usually young.  And - eventually - they may well land in prison. Because of the criminalisation of Pot.
There are Medical landmines in all our daily lives, thanks Muso, but the 'issue ' doesn't end there. Even if it should. The Law doesn't allow that!.

By keeping Pot illegal, we are seriously undermining our youth. And by extension - our future.
Young  people see the harm from alcohol, and often suffer it, but know its legal.  
So they look for something else and smoke, - and realise they don't get aggro or maudlin, they don't want to wander around looking for fun and getting into strife.   So - they see the REAL outcomes.
How to reconcile the difference in legal treatment of the two substances I speak of??- How to make sense of it?  Good luck kids - !!
We already see the results of this policy in place -  just about everywhere. But we Adults don't seem to grasp the significance - when many of our youth most need the support of their fellows, they get the opposite.
We are stacking the odds against them..

By keeping Pot illegal, we are seriously undermining our youth. And by extension - our future.
:(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on May 10th, 2011 at 10:56am

muso wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 11:34am:

... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 2:07pm:
OK, so the report is written a bit crappily (as is par for the course on news.com) The weed didn't 'cure' the brain tumour as is rpeorted, but it is one of, if not THE best appetite stimulants around.  You can't fight if you have no energy, so it may very well have been the differnce between life and death.


Poppycock. Any of the tetracyclic antidepressants such as Mazindol or Amoxapine, or even Chlorpromazine are far more effective than smoking weed.


I am sorry to tell you this muso, but you believe to easily in the pharmaceutical company doctrine, because for whatever strange reasons there may be, a significant number of people react differently to different chemicals, and a definitive statement that the drugs you listed are always superior, in all circumstances, for all people, is as unrealistic as Jalene thinking marijuana is the best.
FOR THE MAJORITY, YOU WILL BE CORRECT, BECAUSE THEY WILL NEVER GET THE OPTION TO TRY THE MARIJUANA ALTERNATIVE TO DECIDE WHICH THEY PREFER.
I think that needs to change, because for many it does provide a good solution, while the mood altering aspects may also provide an extra calming benefit at the same time, which should be available for those that prefer it.

A little story about how pharmacology does not always go the way they expect was related to me by one of my sister's old acquaintances. She was a very long term narcotic addict, and after decades of abuse, and several treatment programs, all of which were only ever partially successful, her Doctor put her on Subutex, which is some sort of opiate replacement I believe, and for the first time in over thirty years, this woman stopped using illicit drugs. She stayed on this subutex for about five or six years, without a single relapse, and then the government said that a new combination of subutex, and nalexone (or something like that name) would be used, because the new ingredient blocked opiate receptors on the brain, and would make it even more effective. She had no issue with that, and went on to the new drug, but within weeks, she had found the craving for hard drugs had returned, and she started to use heroin again, despite having no intention, or desire to do so, until the drug she was on that had worked for her, was "improved" by the pharmacologists.
Theoretically the new mixture should have been an improvement, and there is absolutely no scientific reason why it would cause her to start to crave hard drugs again, but to her dismay, and detriment, it did. She may be the odd one out of may who had no such problems, but her request to be allowed to go back onto subutex was refused, and now she struggles to stay free of illicit drugs. So I always remember that story when I hear people say that this "one" drug is the way to treat everybody, because while many will no doubt experience the expected effects, a few will not, and those people also deserve to be able to receive the treatment that is best for them, even if it is something like marijuana. I am not saying it should be every prescribing physicians first choice, but it should be in his bag of tricks for those that it does help.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on May 10th, 2011 at 11:57am
marijuana was an old method of sedation for primitive hack/slash operations.

...now its just a modern 'joke'  ::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 10th, 2011 at 8:35pm
au contraire ! :D
Tried and true!! :)

But I never said it was the best,  jeez hoose ! do get sick of people putting words in my mouth! :P

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Grey on May 10th, 2011 at 10:01pm
Jalane likes to blow her own trumpet ;D


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 11th, 2011 at 12:15am
well g'day Grey. :) How's it going? What d'ya know? :-*

But I say, old chap, what are you on .... about.!? Hmm?
Contextually, I'd have to assume the Trumpet you show is the deadly 'Datura'!. .

Please correct me if I'm wrong . :D
Other then that - (lyric coming up: Warning!)

What the f ck? what the f ck Chuck? (Repeat)
8-)
Err  - cheers to you too!  Stay away from those Mushies now you hear? OK? ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on May 11th, 2011 at 2:29am
onya Grey

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on May 11th, 2011 at 10:07am

mozzaok wrote on May 10th, 2011 at 10:56am:

muso wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 11:34am:
Poppycock. Any of the tetracyclic antidepressants such as Mazindol or Amoxapine, or even Chlorpromazine are far more effective than smoking weed.


I am sorry to tell you this muso, but you believe to easily in the pharmaceutical company doctrine, because for whatever strange reasons there may be, a significant number of people react differently to different chemicals, and a definitive statement that the drugs you listed are always superior, in all circumstances, for all people, is as unrealistic as Jalene thinking marijuana is the best.
FOR THE MAJORITY, YOU WILL BE CORRECT, BECAUSE THEY WILL NEVER GET THE OPTION TO TRY THE MARIJUANA ALTERNATIVE TO DECIDE WHICH THEY PREFER.


Mozzaok has made a good point here. Not that I think pot is something that should be used for pleasure (millions would disagree with me), but it can be used for medicinal purposes for those who have been used as guinea pigs by the chemical companies.

I, for one have never been able to tolerate any sort of mind altering chemical - and over the years I've been prescribed anti-depressants which seem to be a quick fix offered by most doctors. Within a couple of days they've brought on massive panic attacks which is far more unpleasant than just feeling depressed.

Mind you - I did try pot a few times when I was a teenager and it had exactly the same affect, but I've heard it's great for cancer patients when they lose their appetite.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 11th, 2011 at 10:33am

mozzaok wrote on May 10th, 2011 at 10:56am:
I am sorry to tell you this muso, but you believe to easily in the pharmaceutical company doctrine, because for whatever strange reasons there may be, a significant number of people react differently to different chemicals, and a definitive statement that the drugs you listed are always superior, in all circumstances, for all people, is as unrealistic as Jalene thinking marijuana is the best.
FOR THE MAJORITY, YOU WILL BE CORRECT, BECAUSE THEY WILL NEVER GET THE OPTION TO TRY THE MARIJUANA ALTERNATIVE TO DECIDE WHICH THEY PREFER.
I think that needs to change, because for many it does provide a good solution, while the mood altering aspects may also provide an extra calming benefit at the same time, which should be available for those that prefer it.

A little story about how pharmacology does not always go the way they expect was related to me by one of my sister's old acquaintances. She was a very long term narcotic addict, and after decades of abuse, and several treatment programs, all of which were only ever partially successful, her Doctor put her on Subutex, which is some sort of opiate replacement I believe, and for the first time in over thirty years, this woman stopped using illicit drugs. She stayed on this subutex for about five or six years, without a single relapse, and then the government said that a new combination of subutex, and nalexone (or something like that name) would be used, because the new ingredient blocked opiate receptors on the brain, and would make it even more effective. She had no issue with that, and went on to the new drug, but within weeks, she had found the craving for hard drugs had returned, and she started to use heroin again, despite having no intention, or desire to do so, until the drug she was on that had worked for her, was "improved" by the pharmacologists.
Theoretically the new mixture should have been an improvement, and there is absolutely no scientific reason why it would cause her to start to crave hard drugs again, but to her dismay, and detriment, it did. She may be the odd one out of may who had no such problems, but her request to be allowed to go back onto subutex was refused, and now she struggles to stay free of illicit drugs. So I always remember that story when I hear people say that this "one" drug is the way to treat everybody, because while many will no doubt experience the expected effects, a few will not, and those people also deserve to be able to receive the treatment that is best for them, even if it is something like marijuana. I am not saying it should be every prescribing physicians first choice, but it should be in his bag of tricks for those that it does help.


This is correct. That's why potentially dangerous drugs should only be administered and managed by a qualified medical practitioner.  For the record I actually worked as a Pharmaceutical Research Assistant for two years just after finishing my first degree, so I do have some background (albeit not very current).

In Australia, it's up to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to decide whether or not a drug is accepted for medical use in Australia, and this is the appropriate way to go. They have the expertise in that area and they follow the appropriate protocols.

You can't do brain surgery by democracy and you certainly can't do drug evaluation by democracy either, regardless of whether (totally impartial  ;D ) users sprinkle it on their cornflakes every morning or not.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on May 11th, 2011 at 10:38am

Quote:
Not that I think pot is something that should be used for pleasure (millions would disagree with me)
mantra

Lol, make that millions, plus one. :)

I smoked pot for almost three decades, and would happily smoke it almost anytime, still, but I just happen to not anymore, mainly because it is expensive, and not freely available, but if it were, I would happily have a joint, and a beer after work, as I used to, which was indeed a very real pleasure for me at the time.

Even though I no longer smoke it, my position remains as it was when I did, it is pleasant, and relatively harmless fun, for the overwhelming majority of people who choose to use it.
Just because I no longer do, I do not believe others should be deprived of the opportunity, or be subjected to mixing with criminal elements merely because they find it enjoyable.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 11th, 2011 at 11:05am

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:38am:

Quote:
Not that I think pot is something that should be used for pleasure (millions would disagree with me)
mantra

Lol, make that millions, plus one. :)

I smoked pot for almost three decades, and would happily smoke it almost anytime, still, but I just happen to not anymore, mainly because it is expensive, and not freely available, but if it were, I would happily have a joint, and a beer after work, as I used to, which was indeed a very real pleasure for me at the time.

Even though I no longer smoke it, my position remains as it was when I did, it is pleasant, and relatively harmless fun, for the overwhelming majority of people who choose to use it.
Just because I no longer do, I do not believe others should be deprived of the opportunity, or be subjected to mixing with criminal elements merely because they find it enjoyable.


That part is probably the best argument for making it legal to grow a small quanitity (maybe one plant) for personal use only. The problem would be enforcement of that limit and the fact that children could be exposed to it.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on May 11th, 2011 at 11:12am

muso wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 11:05am:

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:38am:

Quote:
Not that I think pot is something that should be used for pleasure (millions would disagree with me)
mantra

Lol, make that millions, plus one. :)

I smoked pot for almost three decades, and would happily smoke it almost anytime, still, but I just happen to not anymore, mainly because it is expensive, and not freely available, but if it were, I would happily have a joint, and a beer after work, as I used to, which was indeed a very real pleasure for me at the time.

Even though I no longer smoke it, my position remains as it was when I did, it is pleasant, and relatively harmless fun, for the overwhelming majority of people who choose to use it.
Just because I no longer do, I do not believe others should be deprived of the opportunity, or be subjected to mixing with criminal elements merely because they find it enjoyable.


That part is probably the best argument for making it legal to grow a small quanitity (maybe one plant) for personal use only. The problem would be enforcement of that limit and the fact that children could be exposed to it.  



In WA, it was decriminalised to grow upto 3 plants (outdoor) for personal use.  All reports showed that this change was having a positive effect.  Unfortunately, the lib government then decided to show how 'tough on crime' they were and flagged their intention to re-criminalise it, going against all recommendations made during  the 'drug summit'

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 12th, 2011 at 12:27am
" This is correct. That's why potentially dangerous drugs should only be administered and managed by a qualified medical practitioner."

If you mean that Muso you are really confused.!!  Or perhaps you DO mean that only Drs should be able to allow you to drink alcohol or take Paracetamol, drink excess coffee or smoke cigarettes (to name just a very few!!).!
No....... hang on a minute - we already know these can be dangerous in many circumstances.    Only they are not subject to prescription/proscription.
You mean you prefer it as it is now?  -  with criminals being the purveyor?? - with no medical practitioners able to play a role in management?   Isn't that sort of ...er..counter to your own argument??.

"That part is probably the best argument for making it legal to grow a small quanitity (maybe one plant) for personal use only. The problem would be enforcement of that limit and the fact that children could be exposed to it. "

This.. your reply to the obvious criminal consequences of illegality. :-?
This.... really shows how naive you really are. ::)

In fact, it shows that you have NO qualification whatsoever to make any useful or authorative comment to this debate.
Please please spare us your unhelpful musings. :'(



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 12th, 2011 at 8:29am

Emma wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 12:27am:
" This is correct. That's why potentially dangerous drugs should only be administered and managed by a qualified medical practitioner."

If you mean that Muso you are really confused.!!  Or perhaps you DO mean that only Drs should be able to allow you to drink alcohol or take Paracetamol, drink excess coffee or smoke cigarettes (to name just a very few!!).!
No....... hang on a minute - we already know these can be dangerous in many circumstances.    Only they are not subject to prescription/proscription.
You mean you prefer it as it is now?  -  with criminals being the purveyor?? - with no medical practitioners able to play a role in management?   Isn't that sort of ...er..counter to your own argument??.

"That part is probably the best argument for making it legal to grow a small quanitity (maybe one plant) for personal use only. The problem would be enforcement of that limit and the fact that children could be exposed to it. "

This.. your reply to the obvious criminal consequences of illegality. :-?
This.... really shows how naive you really are. ::)

In fact, it shows that you have NO qualification whatsoever to make any useful or authorative comment to this debate.
Please please spare us your unhelpful musings. :'(


I already stated what my qualifications are.  As a self-confessed regular user for many years, I think you've disqualified yourself from any unbiased discussion on the matter.

I absolutely agree with your assessment that alcoholics and cigarette smokers should be managed by a doctor. It's a pity more people didn't think that way.  

Paracetamol is not addictive and it causes nausea if taken in large quantities and prolonged use can cause kidney problems, in common with alcohol. . At least it has quality control and instructions on the packet. If you are taking huge numbers of paracetemol tablets (similar to your intake of marijuana) then you would need medical management. No doubt about it.

You should also see a doctor about your addiction to cannabis.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 12th, 2011 at 8:38am

... wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 11:12am:
In WA, it was decriminalised to grow upto 3 plants (outdoor) for personal use.  All reports showed that this change was having a positive effect.  Unfortunately, the lib government then decided to show how 'tough on crime' they were and flagged their intention to re-criminalise it, going against all recommendations made during  the 'drug summit'


All reports? A positive effect? What - on cookie sales?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on May 12th, 2011 at 8:56am

Quote:
You should also see a doctor about your addiction to cannabis.


Realistically Muso, wouldn't you see that as a bad move?
It's like going to see your doctor for an addiction to riding on trains and he precribes a more harmful solution such as valium to quell the urge to ride on trains.

The facts are facts. Cannibis "per se'" has literally no adverse affects upon the human body.
And while we're at it, we may as well come clean and admit that Heroin doesn't have any adverse affects either if taken in non-lethal doses.

Any substance that you could name can become lethal in very high doses...Water (H2O) and oxygen, can become lethal


.And the facts are facts that cannibis is very lethal to productivity.

Ohhh go cry on another's shoulder....I don't wanna heatr about it.

What we're talking about is not to do with human safety, it's to do with that god awful dreaded scurge called PRODUCTIVITY




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 12th, 2011 at 9:47am
I'm not approaching from the angle of productivity. I'll PM you.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on May 12th, 2011 at 9:55am

muso wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 8:38am:

... wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 11:12am:
In WA, it was decriminalised to grow upto 3 plants (outdoor) for personal use.  All reports showed that this change was having a positive effect.  Unfortunately, the lib government then decided to show how 'tough on crime' they were and flagged their intention to re-criminalise it, going against all recommendations made during  the 'drug summit'


All reports? A positive effect? What - on cookie sales?



*SIGH*

yes, muso.  On cookie sales.

::)

But anyway, see for yourself


Quote:
Previous research suggested that as long as cannabis use remained illegal, neither the criminal law, nor civil penalties themselves had much impact on rates of cannabis use in the community. Consistent with this, the cannabis use data in this study suggest that, unlike the predictions of those public commentators who were critical of the scheme, cannabis use in WA appears to have continued to decline despite the introduction of the Cannabis Infringement Notice Scheme.

http://ndri.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/pdf/publications/T177.pdf

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 12th, 2011 at 10:13pm
Thanks for the advice Muso. NOT!!

You 've got no right to advise anyone anything on this topic, as I've said already.

Focus!!  Thats what I'd say to you - think about it.  :-?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 12th, 2011 at 10:51pm
and -
Amadd - totally agree with you, although, 'productivity' and your view, is arguable.

[i[b]"And while we're at it, we may as well come clean and admit that Heroin doesn't have any adverse affects either if taken in non-lethal doses.
Any substance that you could name can become lethal in very high doses...Water (H2O) and oxygen, can become lethal."
[/b][/i]

And i agree with your opinion on H as well.    OOOhh Addiction  Addiction !!! will reply some.  

Even THAT is not necessarily the case.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on May 13th, 2011 at 1:26am
Actually Muso. I agree with your points, but you know how much this stuff flies over their cuckoo nests.
I could state that only the Military should have guns and no-one else, not even Cops ...they still wouldn't get it because its all about 'responsibility'.

I never saw the 'fun' watching people smoke a joint, become 'stupidified' by their actions, have a false sense of appetite and then fall asleep finally (like most people feel when they have to put up with the potty ones).
They would light up a joint and then swear that their behaviour patterns and effects were nothing akin to that of a heroine junkie.
...just sit and stare like an autistic child in their own little world "Oh wow man".
Watching a pot head drive is like watching old 98 year old Cecil reacting to a kangaroo upon the middle of the road.

Potheads prefer to keep their leafy habit under the control of Legalities and Politics, for its a far better deal for them than to have Medics take control.

Take it from me Muso, just leave them be with their fascination for a dull expression for recreation (I prefer fun trips to New Zealand for starters). Just live a healthy life and keep walking when they cry for help via their mental disorders ...as many of them do in this nation. Just let em have the last word for what its worth to them. I learn't via Private Health, that there are better people to look after - while Jalane and Co can only cope (and complain about) with the Public (Govt) System.

These days, I find Pot-Heads an EXPLOITABLE COMMODITY ....now thats a real laugh ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 13th, 2011 at 6:13am

Emma wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 10:13pm:
Thanks for the advice Muso. NOT!!

You 've got no right to advise anyone anything on this topic, as I've said already.

Focus!!  Thats what I'd say to you - think about it.  :-?


That's why I recommended you see your doctor/ psychologist whatever.  :P


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on May 13th, 2011 at 9:58am

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 1:26am:
Actually Muso. I agree with your points, but you know how much this stuff flies over their cuckoo nests.
I could state that only the Military should have guns and no-one else, not even Cops ...they still wouldn't get it because its all about 'responsibility'.

I never saw the 'fun' watching people smoke a joint, become 'stupidified' by their actions, have a false sense of appetite and then fall asleep finally (like most people feel when they have to put up with the potty ones).
They would light up a joint and then swear that their behaviour patterns and effects were nothing akin to that of a heroine junkie.
...just sit and stare like an autistic child in their own little world "Oh wow man".
Watching a pot head drive is like watching old 98 year old Cecil reacting to a kangaroo upon the middle of the road.

Potheads prefer to keep their leafy habit under the control of Legalities and Politics, for its a far better deal for them than to have Medics take control.

Take it from me Muso, just leave them be with their fascination for a dull expression for recreation (I prefer fun trips to New Zealand for starters). Just live a healthy life and keep walking when they cry for help via their mental disorders ...as many of them do in this nation. Just let em have the last word for what its worth to them. I learn't via Private Health, that there are better people to look after - while Jalane and Co can only cope (and complain about) with the Public (Govt) System.

These days, I find Pot-Heads an EXPLOITABLE COMMODITY ....now thats a real laugh ;D



And you say stoners have mental disorders?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on May 13th, 2011 at 11:05am
Amadd.

Quote:
Heroin doesn't have any adverse affects either if taken in non-lethal doses.


That is rubbish.
Tell us that again after a junkie robs your place to get
a few bucks for their next hit - because they are hanging out for their smack -
their body shaking from withdrawal.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 13th, 2011 at 3:12pm

Emma wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 10:51pm:
And i agree with your opinion on H as well.    OOOhh Addiction  Addiction !!! will reply some.  


Don't tell me  - you've been sprinkling that on your cornflakes for 30 years too.  ::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on May 13th, 2011 at 8:51pm
Reading posts by Jalane and Co is like listening to the dudes at work saying the Formaldehyde that is used upon the Chicken Eggs and Chicks is a safe level. :-?
...I tend to think that 0 (zero) is the only "safe level".

You know its a 'dopey' Western society out there that is more apt at winning wars, when non-medics starting telling people the pros and cons of drugs.

"Save the Trees, don't smoke em" ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 13th, 2011 at 10:47pm
Gosh Bat1  
call the cops. Did that happen to you?? a friend??
wouldn't it be good if this didn't need to happen at all? Yeah?

I think so too. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 14th, 2011 at 8:39am

Emma wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 10:47pm:
Gosh Bat1  
call the cops. Did that happen to you?? a friend??
wouldn't it be good if this didn't need to happen at all? Yeah?

I think so too. :)


Yeah.............Like wow! OMG!!!!!!!! Reality is so weird... Far out. You go, sister.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 14th, 2011 at 8:42am

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 8:51pm:
"Save the Trees, don't smoke em" ;)


You gotta walk the talk brother. I mean, like you gotta be groovy, cool, far out and anti-establishment. You just lay off the grass dissing, cuz its healthy and nourishful.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on May 14th, 2011 at 11:00am

muso wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 8:39am:

Emma wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 10:47pm:
Gosh Bat1  
call the cops. Did that happen to you?? a friend??
wouldn't it be good if this didn't need to happen at all? Yeah?

I think so too. :)


Yeah.............Like wow! OMG!!!!!!!! Reality is so weird... Far out. You go, sister.


The last time my place was robbed was 8 years ago & the cops told me
that 9 out of 10 burglaries were caused by heroin junkies trying to
steal enough goods to convert into their next hit.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 14th, 2011 at 6:00pm
Well that shows my point- don't you think?   Think of the drop in crime if decent policies were in place.
Can you grasp that? Things don't need to be this bad - and getting badder. We are reaping what we sowed.
8-) 8-)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on May 15th, 2011 at 1:18pm
Think of the drop in crime if they decriminalised everything.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on May 16th, 2011 at 12:09am
Yeah, and maybe we should push to have the Bali 9 released because they really didn't ruin and destroy over 50,000 people's lives and families.
Death by Lethal Injection anyone?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 16th, 2011 at 12:12am
'Think of the drop in crime if they decriminalised everything. '   Brilliant!!   ;D

No - but seriously folks - open up your hearts and minds - why do you want people you can kick??

:P

make u feel better??
After all - isn't the logic perfectly easy to understand.??  

Forget about your personal prejudices and think about it from the point of view --   'What is best for our society?'  


And you cannot deny my point.  
The  savings in $ terms -in the reduction in the prison population,  let alone freeing up huge police resources to tackle real crime, is argument enough - or should be.  Especially for you victims and you $$$ worshippers.  Its simple really   --  remove the source of the profit to crims and give it to the people who need it.But - sadly, like so many others, you are mostly about blame, not responsibility.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on May 16th, 2011 at 1:35am
Actually its the LAW that prevents us Medics from kicking your butt and breaking your joints like a laser to a malignant cancer that tries to spread ill health like a typical drug pusher/dealer.
Listen here Grimmer "Jalane" Wormtongue - your words are like poisen.
Thank god that miserable pot-head John Lennon was put out of his misery ...the world, our world was never good enough for his hippy protests of vague illusions and dull shock tactics - and yes, I've seen the little "Gollum" cave he hid in at Kathmandu to get his "spiritual" awakening with some "really good Buddha man" ::)


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on May 16th, 2011 at 10:58am

Bobby. wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 11:00am:

muso wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 8:39am:

Emma wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 10:47pm:
Gosh Bat1  
call the cops. Did that happen to you?? a friend??
wouldn't it be good if this didn't need to happen at all? Yeah?

I think so too. :)


Yeah.............Like wow! OMG!!!!!!!! Reality is so weird... Far out. You go, sister.


The last time my place was robbed was 8 years ago & the cops told me
that 9 out of 10 burglaries were caused by heroin junkies trying to
steal enough goods to convert into their next hit.



That statement by 'the cops' would carry a lot more weight if they actually CAUGHT 9/10 burglars.  But since they'd be lucky to catch a quarter of that, it is simply an empty soundbite.  Not that I'm pro-heroin or anything, but I do prefer facts to throwaway lines by rookie cops.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 16th, 2011 at 2:16pm
Poor Old John Lennon (deceased)  what did he ever do to you - J.??
And lets not bring Buddha into it.!! Don't see what thats got to do with anything at all. ;D ;D :D

So-hmm you call yourself a Medic.  How nice for you -  'cos we all know medicine is NOT a science -  altho you can have Medical scientists. Is that why you can't help but make nasty noises?? Not that I feel in any way put out, you show your own problems, .....and personally a bit of biffo at 3.00 am is perfectly fine. But dear, I think you should get more sleep.  Improves the thought processes marvellously. ::)
signed
Poison Worm-Tongue :D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 16th, 2011 at 10:48pm
 
Listen here Grimmer "Jalane" Wormtongue - your words are like poisen.


At least I can spell.    Not to worry J  -  I forgive you your unkind words.  :)

Namaste :)
 







Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on May 16th, 2011 at 11:19pm

Bobby. wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 11:05am:
Amadd.

Quote:
Heroin doesn't have any adverse affects either if taken in non-lethal doses.


That is rubbish.
Tell us that again after a junkie robs your place to get
a few bucks for their next hit - because they are hanging out for their smack -
their body shaking from withdrawal.


Actually it is the "lack" of heroin that is creating those withdrawal symptoms, and if Heroin were legally prescribed, and administered, to "registered" addicts, we would see the use, and illegal supply of Heroin plummet.
In fact, once you take the money out of the equation, then you drastically alter the whole dynamic of the drug supply/user relationship, and you would not see young pop stars writing songs about how cool it is to use smack, and you would not have rebellious young teens emulating their idols and "experimenting" with hard drugs to invest in their stock of "coolness".

Also if young people do not have to seek out a dealer of illegal drugs to obtain Cannabis, they will also not be put in situations where they see other young folk using other drugs, and hence begin to see the use of these other drugs "normalised" in their eyes.

There is no natural progression from one drug to another, apart from the social connection, and if Heroin addicts were just seen as sad old farts going to get their daily dose of poison from a registered practitioner, rather than live fast, die young, rebels, then the whole mystery, charisma, that truly does surround the hard drug scene, would rapidly evaporate into nothing more than a slightly unattractive medical condition, to be avoided wherever possible.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 16th, 2011 at 11:49pm
Hear hear mozzaok!

You have succinctly put the position I take on this issue - far better than I have been able to.
Thanks.


:) :)


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on May 16th, 2011 at 11:52pm

... wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 10:58am:

Bobby. wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 11:00am:

muso wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 8:39am:

Emma wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 10:47pm:
Gosh Bat1  
call the cops. Did that happen to you?? a friend??
wouldn't it be good if this didn't need to happen at all? Yeah?

I think so too. :)


Yeah.............Like wow! OMG!!!!!!!! Reality is so weird... Far out. You go, sister.


The last time my place was robbed was 8 years ago & the cops told me
that 9 out of 10 burglaries were caused by heroin junkies trying to
steal enough goods to convert into their next hit.



That statement by 'the cops' would carry a lot more weight if they actually CAUGHT 9/10 burglars.  But since they'd be lucky to catch a quarter of that, it is simply an empty soundbite.  Not that I'm pro-heroin or anything, but I do prefer facts to throwaway lines by rookie cops.



Make that a detective in a suit & tie.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 16th, 2011 at 11:55pm
Just a little reminiscence -for your edification-

My big brother said to me yrs and yrs and yrs and yrs ago :)

"If they ever legalised Pot he'd probably give it away.  It would take all the fun and excitement out of it.!!"
:)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Soren on May 17th, 2011 at 1:30pm

mozzaok wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 11:19pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 11:05am:
Amadd.

Quote:
Heroin doesn't have any adverse affects either if taken in non-lethal doses.


That is rubbish.
Tell us that again after a junkie robs your place to get
a few bucks for their next hit - because they are hanging out for their smack -
their body shaking from withdrawal.


Actually it is the "lack" of heroin that is creating those withdrawal symptoms, and if Heroin were legally prescribed, and administered, to "registered" addicts, we would see the use, and illegal supply of Heroin plummet.
In fact, once you take the money out of the equation, then you drastically alter the whole dynamic of the drug supply/user relationship, and you would not see young pop stars writing songs about how cool it is to use smack, and you would not have rebellious young teens emulating their idols and "experimenting" with hard drugs to invest in their stock of "coolness".

Also if young people do not have to seek out a dealer of illegal drugs to obtain Cannabis, they will also not be put in situations where they see other young folk using other drugs, and hence begin to see the use of these other drugs "normalised" in their eyes.

There is no natural progression from one drug to another, apart from the social connection, and if Heroin addicts were just seen as sad old farts going to get their daily dose of poison from a registered practitioner, rather than live fast, die young, rebels, then the whole mystery, charisma, that truly does surround the hard drug scene, would rapidly evaporate into nothing more than a slightly unattractive medical condition, to be avoided wherever possible.



You've got it back to front.

The punks use illegal drugs because they are illegal (ie using is a rebellion, as you yourself sense it), not because they are drugs.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on May 17th, 2011 at 1:31pm

Bobby. wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 11:52pm:

... wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 10:58am:

Bobby. wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 11:00am:

muso wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 8:39am:

Emma wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 10:47pm:
Gosh Bat1  
call the cops. Did that happen to you?? a friend??
wouldn't it be good if this didn't need to happen at all? Yeah?

I think so too. :)


Yeah.............Like wow! OMG!!!!!!!! Reality is so weird... Far out. You go, sister.


The last time my place was robbed was 8 years ago & the cops told me
that 9 out of 10 burglaries were caused by heroin junkies trying to
steal enough goods to convert into their next hit.



That statement by 'the cops' would carry a lot more weight if they actually CAUGHT 9/10 burglars.  But since they'd be lucky to catch a quarter of that, it is simply an empty soundbite.  Not that I'm pro-heroin or anything, but I do prefer facts to throwaway lines by rookie cops.



Make that a detective in a suit & tie.



Doesn't change the fact he was talking through his arse, it just means he'd been in the job long enough to know better.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 18th, 2011 at 12:12am
"Doesn't change the fact he was talking through his arse, it just means he'd been in the job long enough to know better."

Guarantee -  he did know better. :(


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on May 18th, 2011 at 12:40pm
Now this is a laugh and I didn't need a joint to do so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmYi5u9BhtI

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 19th, 2011 at 2:08am
heehheee
haven't heard that one for a while,  and never the vid before . ...thanks.

Poor skinheads.!!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 19th, 2011 at 2:12am
You've got it back to front.

The punks use illegal drugs because they are illegal (ie using is a rebellion, as you yourself sense it), not because they are drugs.


That is most likely true - of punks. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on May 19th, 2011 at 11:58am
...I think you missed the Passive/Aggressive point of the clip.
Is that because you are BiPolar (like the UK - doesn't know if it is European or Namerican)?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 19th, 2011 at 9:00pm
so why don't you explain it to me J?
I'll read it.

:-?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 19th, 2011 at 9:02pm
Oh yeah -  I'm definitely NOT diagnosed as Bi- Polar.
Although I have to say "..manic depression is a frustrating mess..." Jimi Hendrix.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lisa on May 21st, 2011 at 2:51pm
Like I stated in another topic ..

Is it medication time?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on May 22nd, 2011 at 1:51am
Lisa, you know stuff all about pot and it's active ingredients.

Talk about what you know about OK?



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 22nd, 2011 at 2:26am
so - can't answer my question eh? Lisa.
the passive/aggressive 'point' of the vid you posted.?  

trot the words out and wait for a reaction - a bit like that 'penis envy'castration anxiety thread you   Have some opposing feelings there have you ??  Perhaps you have seen it from both sides -  a transgender person who has lost track of their orientation perhaps??

As for medication -  I always try to take mine on time thanks, and usually succeed. How about yours?? :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 22nd, 2011 at 2:30am
Darn it - got it wrong again.  Sorry Lisa, its Jasign who seems unable to answer the question about the vid posted by Jasign. But - hey maybe you can answer?? Did you get it?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on May 22nd, 2011 at 4:04am
I could count on less than one finger those who partook in any substance abuse who had the specific the goal to use it as an aid to steal from others.

Cannibis is not a physically addictive drug. It will not make one steal from others as a physical  "necessity".

Heroin will, and so too will many other drugs..including basic food.
A lack of food will make even the most mild mannered character rob you, or even kill you if needs be.

So keep a look out for those hungry people OK?  ;)








Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 29th, 2011 at 11:11pm
Cannibis is not a physically addictive drug. It will not make one steal from others as a physical  "necessity".

Yeah -- so what is the problem?? ( Not asking you A - just everyone else with an interest.)

People seem to feel some moral obligation to frown on 'using drugs'  - tho I bet you - 99% of them do use drugs, of one sort or another.  Many of them dangerous, and capable of causing death.

I bet you many of them only say these things 'cos they don't want any hassles, they want to fit in.  Much easier to go along with the phobic, than challenge their fears.

And I wouldn't care -  but the policy divides our society, and creates strata's of folk that are unecessary cause for much harm.  The young see the fallacy of the war on drugs, the harm it creates,   -- and can then only wonder ( at the very least)  about the validity of other of society's law.  So we alienate the young, - they lose respect for conventions - and people face the issues confronting us TODAY.
Dem's da facts Jack. :P




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on May 30th, 2011 at 12:18am
I'mmmmmmmmm Sooooooooorrrrrryyyyyyyyyy,
I'mmmmmmmmm jusssssst aaaaaaaa biiiiiiiit slowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
toooooooooo
we-act
whennnnnnnnnn
sssssssssssssssssstooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnn'd.

Esssssssssspeshellyyyyyyyyyyy wheennnnnnnnnnnn
d ...d ...driii ...vinnnnnng

:P Jalane - the Stop Sign
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwI2NrVYqIE&feature=related

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 30th, 2011 at 12:53am
Yea  good old TISM  again - thanks for that  
Wot's yer prob??   Too much Valium?? :D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on May 31st, 2011 at 3:43pm
No, just too many pot-heads trying to by-pass 'illegalities' in order to  justify themselves in the face of proper Medical efforts on behalf of a better world.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 31st, 2011 at 3:57pm
Guffaw!! ;D ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on May 31st, 2011 at 9:26pm
There was interesting thingy on The Drum site a few days ago about the relationship between the use of modern type pot and the onset of a hardcore case of pyschosis.

It was about 8 years ago I met someone who had ended up in a rubber room after her first smoke of pot and since then I've known of one other.

I can't say I'd ever met or heard of anybody so affected before then - especially when near 90% of the people I associated with smoked pot.

Based on what I've heard and read over the past five or so years I'd say that there's probably something in the whole link between cannabis use and the onset of some kind of lasting or chronic psychosis - something that seemingly didn't exist back when I used to bong on all day, everyday.

The last time I smoked pot was about 5 years ago and I must say I was surprised at just how potent the gear was. I commented on it and as a reply got a few shrugs and the comment that "meh.... it's average".

Is it addictive? nope. Habit forming perhaps. But certainly not physically addictive. Few drugs are. Heroin certainly, Nicotine certainly, Benzos certainly, Alcohol certainly - the rest..... debatable at best.... but when it comes down to it: no.

And to put the disclaimer that seems usual in this thread:

I haven't used pcp, mescaline or meow.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 31st, 2011 at 10:33pm
The last time I smoked pot was about 5 years ago and I must say I was surprised at just how potent the gear was. I commented on it and as a reply got a few shrugs and the comment that "meh.... it's average".

Is it addictive? nope. Habit forming perhaps. But certainly not physically addictive. Few drugs are. Heroin certainly, Nicotine certainly, Benzos certainly, Alcohol certainly - the rest..... debatable at best.... but when it comes down to it: no.

And to put the disclaimer that seems usual in this thread:

I haven't used pcp, mescaline or meow.


Ah yes  - another problem with a black market commodity. If you can make it smaller  ( easier to hide) and stronger, (easier to sell) it will happen.
That is the nature of humans, given a challenge - like unjust laws, ... to use and 'tailor' the fruits of the earth -
so we see 'Hydro' - gear much more potent per gm than Bush Bud, according to reliable sources.!!.  Hydro is everywhere - and is not a preferred outcome for the WOD, but , nevertheless it is.  
Denying it won't make it go away - any more than whining about climate change or encouraging indefinite child incarceration will solve those issues.
Its a matter of grasping reality- not the fantasy you choose to dwell in. ;D ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on May 31st, 2011 at 10:44pm

Emma wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 10:33pm:
The last time I smoked pot was about 5 years ago and I must say I was surprised at just how potent the gear was. I commented on it and as a reply got a few shrugs and the comment that "meh.... it's average".

Is it addictive? nope. Habit forming perhaps. But certainly not physically addictive. Few drugs are. Heroin certainly, Nicotine certainly, Benzos certainly, Alcohol certainly - the rest..... debatable at best.... but when it comes down to it: no.

And to put the disclaimer that seems usual in this thread:

I haven't used pcp, mescaline or meow.


Ah yes  - another problem with a black market commodity. If you can make it smaller  ( easier to hide) and stronger, (easier to sell) it will happen.
That is the nature of humans, given a challenge - like unjust laws, ... to use and 'tailor' the fruits of the earth -
so we see 'Hydro' - gear much more potent per gm than Bush Bud, according to reliable sources.!!.  Hydro is everywhere - and is not a preferred outcome for the WOD, but , nevertheless it is.  
Denying it won't make it go away - any more than whining about climate change or encouraging indefinite child incarceration will solve those issues.
Its a matter of grasping reality- not the fantasy you choose to dwell in. ;D ;)


I agree with you. From what I've seen, prohibition has simply caused the proliferation of what I call "prohibition drugs".

The restrictions on chems used to make old fashioned speed has given us meth (cousins, but meth is far more habit forming).

The post 90's crack down on Ecstasy has given us the designer drugs like GHB.

The heavier policing of naturally grown pot has given us the stronger hydro types.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on May 31st, 2011 at 11:15pm
I agree with you. From what I've seen, prohibition has simply caused the proliferation of what I call "prohibition drugs".

The restrictions on chems used to make old fashioned speed has given us meth (cousins, but meth is far more habit forming).

The post 90's crack down on Ecstasy has given us the designer drugs like GHB.

The heavier policing of naturally grown pot has given us the stronger hydro types.


It really is undeniable.
But -  hey - it shows the truth, in action, -  even in social dynamics,  -of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.! :) :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Baronvonrort on Jun 1st, 2011 at 7:58pm
How is the war on drugs going are you winning or being beaten by people on drugs?

Look at what is costs to enforce a losing battle against potheads maybe the government should legalise it,tax it and the consequences might be those making a fortune from it will lose a source of income.

It was only criminalised so synthetic fibre could compete against hemp, the Dupont family had connections to make that happen.

Jack Herer- The emporer wears no clothes
This book covers all the names and details on why they criminalised hemp in the USA.
I think there may be free copies online search for it.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 1st, 2011 at 8:08pm
Thanks for the 'heads up' !  :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 6:10am

Quote:
Jack Herer- The emporer wears no clothes
This book covers all the names and details on why they criminalised hemp in the USA.
I think there may be free copies online search for it.


I'll have a look for that one.

I think that it's been scientifically and blatantly ascertained that THC is not a relatively harmful chemical in itself.
The real harm is to the economic machine.
Granted that one won't care as much, one won't work as much, and one will be more sedate in a distasteful or hostile environment.

It hasn't been proven that taking dope is more dangerous to the community whilst driving a car than being tired, being in a bad mood, being on the rags, working too hard, being a male between the ages of 18-25, etc. etc.

In all probability, smoking a couple of bongs would make anybody a safer driver than dutifully being the average (screwed up) punter who abides by every dictated law that is thrown at them.
If you abide by all of that crap, then you are bound to be a moron and an unsafe driver, and I wouldn't get in the car with you for the life of me.i








Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 2:50am
Driving ui?

As it generally opens the mind, rather than muffling it, as with alcohol - I would agree whole-heartedly.

Driving becomes serious business, rather than a complacent and everyday activity, performed on semi-auto.



I remember - years ago now- of a fairly famous US DJ taking part in a test - designed to measure the influence of Pot on driving response times. Compared to same test ui of alcohol.

In fact I think he was also an actor, just can't remember the name, but can see the face.  Hang on  - its coming...ah - the show he was on 'WKRP' or something close, about a radio station, and he played a DJ /Opportunist/Womaniser-type
But - this was a real study.  

Using sensitive equipment to measure reaction time and other responses.   It was funny.
The tester was confounded by the fact that the guy performed better after a smoke of Pot, than he did when they did the base-line test when he was  uninfluenced by either Pot or Alc.  Goes without saying- he went BAD when pissed. More Pot?  Slightly better again.  

Believe it or not!!.

SEE  - we only get told the bad propaganda, 'cos it supports the Govt position.  They daren't let the population as a whole be fully informed -  'cos it proves their lies.  Censorship on this topic is HUGE.
 
Its been happening for years. >:(  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:56am
Its about the MEDICAL position,
of which the Government (POLITICS) is doing well to support by making it illegal.


........I think you are going to have a very nasty experience soon Jalane, in relation to your use and support of Pot.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 4:50pm

Quote:
A GROUP of prominent former world leaders said the so-called war on drugs has "failed" and that decriminalising marijuana may help curb drug-related violence and social ills.
"The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world," the members of the Global Commission on Drug Policy say in a report.

"Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President (Richard) Nixon launched the US government's war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed."

"Decriminalisation initiatives do not result in significant increases in drug use," the report said, citing policies in Australia, the Netherlands and Portugal.

It also said restrictions on marijuana should be loosened, and urged governments to "end the criminalisation, marginalisation and stigmatisation of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others".

The commission includes former Brazilian president Fernando Cardoso, former Colombian president Cesar Gaviria, Mexico's former president Ernesto Zedillo and the ex-UN chief Kofi Annan.

It presents its report officially tomorrow in New York.

The group of prominent statesmen, many from countries on the frontline of the seemingly never-ending war on drugs, said purely punitive measures had in fact led to a situation where "the global scale of illegal drug markets - largely controlled by organised crime - has grown dramatically."

"Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs (especially cannabis) to undermine the power of organised crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens," the report urged.

Another priority, the report said, is to work on treatment.

"Let's start by treating drug addiction as a health issue, reducing drug demand through proven educational initiatives and legally regulating rather than criminalising cannabis," Mr Cardoso said.



Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world/decriminalising-marijuana-worth-a-try/story-e6frfkz0-1226067885880#ixzz1OC2iuFCo

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 7:14pm
Hope you read Mr Pipe's post -  so I don't have to say it all again, Jasign.!! :-?  OK?  
Give you ANY pause???
This NASTY BUSINESS you refer to, happening to me soon. ???
[i]Care to elucidate???[/i]
SBS 6.30 World News tonight TONIGHT -gave a look at this very announcement. Didn't catch it earlier, and have ABC on now to see if it appears there.!!
In fact, SBS tonight was a veritable feast of some the major issues confronting us - as a World.!!
Hope you saw it.

Try reconsidering your position - you'll feel HEAPS better. ;)


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Cybergenesis on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:28pm
Its amazing the amount of ignorance in this thread.

* Marijuana does not cause psychosis in people that will not otherwise develop psychosis. Marijuana does not increase the incidence of schizophrenia.

* There is no reliable evidence showing Marijuana is causative of the development of any form of mental illness.

* Hydro is not stronger than outdoor weed. It is to do with genetics. Good outdoor weed is every bit as good as hydro, although my opinion is hydro is a superior growing method for many reasons.

* It is impossible to overdose or die from Marijuana, unlike alcohol, nicotine and coffee.

* Marijuana is far safer than both the use of cigarettes and the misuse of alcohol.

* Marijuana is only psychologically addictive to people with ingrained psychological problems that use it as a crux to escape their problems. Such people are much better off using Marijuana than using other, more damaging drugs- which they would likely use if Marijuana wasn't so widely available.

* Marijuana helped me escape chronic alcoholism. And I was a dangerous, violent nutcase on alcohol (highly dangerous, I have nearly been shot dead by the police on Alcohol), whereas I am harmless on Marijuana (except if you have a bag of mcdonalds cheeseburgers on you)

Marijuana should be legal, its pathetic that its not. A responsible adult should have the right to use marijuana if they want. Enough with the Nanny government, but guess what? Endless Australian's say bugger YOU to prohibition and use it anyway. I've been using it for over 20 years and NEVER been busted by the police. bugger THE POLICE.

Hope this has cleared up some misconceptions to the many idiotic opinions in this thread, please don't talk about things you know NOTHING about.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 4th, 2011 at 1:51pm
I prefer to believe the Medics (the real ones ...not the Western ones who are more apt at winning wars and should stick to what they do best and not justifying excuses for Drug Addicts) ...obviously. ::)

You forgot to mention that Marijuana lowers your ability to cope with everyday life and the everday people who live in it and have to put up with the 'excuses' made by people who smoke it.
OH&S had to enforce the "Use of Harnesses" at construction sites where high elevation work was carried out. In the old days, nobody fell off roofs in the way that a stream of young guys did in the 90's. It was never promoted in the Media, to protect the family's honour, but all the young victims were under the influence of Pot.
...as was a Ferry Driver when it crashed.
as were Train Drivers in accidents,
as are a lot of people who are too slow to react and 'forgetful'.
Schizophrenic behaviour is totally associated with the use of Pot (only a drug addict would say otherwise and bring out crap dis-information to support so).

Life is hard enough. I got sacked because I decked a Pot head who was placing motorists and Pedestrians in danger during a Traffic Control job. He was just too "laid back/chilled out" , in other words "LAZY" to do his job and he was also Aggressive in his alco usage. The residual effect was that he was hard to 'work' with and I was stuck with him because no-one else wanted to work with him. Eventually, after 6 weeks of 'trying', I had enough and didn't care that he was 'Bigger' than me as he emphasised when we first met where he told me that he has 'Certain behaviour problems and he becomes agressive'. In other words - he thought he could threaten/bully me with some 'medical crapola excuse for abuse. Well I was no longer working as a Medic and I didn't have to tolerate such behaviour in the slightest. Its funny how, after disobeying my instructions as Leading Hand, he raised the "Stop" sign to protect him ;D.

There's a lot of people out there that don't need to tolerate your behaviour due to your addiction to Pot and its not just due to 'criminal' behaviour. Some Medics like the Govt Public System will protect your 'excuse', while others like the Private just say "Get out of my way fool!" ...then there's the other Medics >:(

...I'm just trying to protect you from yourselves, let alone innocent people/family/friends who suffer from your apathetic approach to life. "You don't need the weed." They don't call it "Dope" for the sake of it. Go out and do something for others, rather than feed a selfish need.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:37pm
Welcome Cybergenesis to this crapshoot.!! :)

As you can see from Jasign's response to your post, trying to point out some facts wont work with J. ::)

Now- the response was also informative, in that J admits an extreme bias against Pot, and Pot smokers, to the extent that J becomes violent.!!! And- it wasn't entirely coherent.

I commend you on your post, Cybergenesis - - and just quietly, I agree with you all the way, even Bush vs Hydro.

But -  your MOST IMPORTANT point, - a personal disclosure of how Pot allowed you to escape the alcohol addiction you had, was excellent.  And  good to hear. !! :)
Since the age of (say) 18 - I have believed that legal marijuana would prove of huge benefit to alcoholics, at the least, to kick their deadly habits.
So -  I have acquired enough ACTUAL knowledge and experience to say I do understand this whole issue quite well.
I have mourned friends who died from alcohol fuelled violence - suicide- and murder.  
I have seen people OD on other illegal drugs, altho not die  ...but nothing like alcohol harm.

AND  good luck to u cyber - good to hear a new voice. :)


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 4th, 2011 at 7:23pm
Then I expect you never to go to a Hospital again Jalane, because you obviously know whats good for your health.
So when your lungs pack it in and neumonia takes hold ...you won't be crying to the Medical Industry "why do I have lungs like a jogger in a polluted city?"
When you're old and grey and the Emphasema makes it all an effort - you won't be eating raw tins of coffee just to keep you 'active' in your own little way. You won't be needing the nasal prongs too, I suppose.

But we know you will, we know you'll go running to the Public system for your 'free' care like the 'bludger' that you are - with all your anxiety from lack of oxygen in your blood stream, you'll even cry foul and go for the 'law suit' because of your 'health' problem.

Violent? Not my fault you bang your head upon my brick wall.
With that ...I'll be making an effort to no longer post upon this Topic. I can't say I'll succeed, but at least I make an effort - unlike potheads who just can't be bothered to do much but 'chill out' and go to sleep.



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 4th, 2011 at 7:40pm
Well actually J - I am already old and gray (altho I prefer to call it 'Silver').

It would be MOST welcome if you did F off.!! Your ignorance is uninspiring, and definitely tiresome to endure, altho strangely AMUSING. Strangely?  because nothing much you actually say is humorous in the least, and that was your last 'out'.

'.... at least I make an effort - unlike potheads who just can't be bothered to do much but 'chill out' and go to sleep...'

Well - you are clearly NOT referring to me.  
More irrelevancy. ::)

I can appreciate that it may give you some personal release to spray a bit of vitriol around, - after all - it doesn't penetrate the monitor's screen.!!  Too BAD - U R so unbalanced in your rhetoric. ::).







Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 4th, 2011 at 7:52pm
Ummm --- last for now - just saying J  - your post - repeated below - WAS  NOT APPRECIATED!!!

Smarten up - fool. >:( ;D ;D ;D :D :D - or preferrably - bugger off.!! 8-)


........I think you are going to have a very nasty experience soon Jalane, in relation to your use and support of Pot.

See that can definitely be viewed as a threat.
But
I AM NOT paranoid, -   wake-up F-Wit.!! :-? ::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Baronvonrort on Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:03am
Medical marijuana?

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

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 5th, 2011 at 2:06am
Wot?
I'm not looking at your vid BVR - what's your point?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by gizmo_2655 on Jun 6th, 2011 at 6:49am

Emma wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 2:50am:
Driving ui?

As it generally opens the mind, rather than muffling it, as with alcohol - I would agree whole-heartedly.

Driving becomes serious business, rather than a complacent and everyday activity, performed on semi-auto.



I remember - years ago now- of a fairly famous US DJ taking part in a test - designed to measure the influence of Pot on driving response times. Compared to same test ui of alcohol.

In fact I think he was also an actor, just can't remember the name, but can see the face.  Hang on  - its coming...ah - the show he was on 'WKRP' or something close, about a radio station, and he played a DJ /Opportunist/Womaniser-type
But - this was a real study.  

Using sensitive equipment to measure reaction time and other responses.   It was funny.
The tester was confounded by the fact that the guy performed better after a smoke of Pot, than he did when they did the base-line test when he was  uninfluenced by either Pot or Alc.  Goes without saying- he went BAD when pissed. More Pot?  Slightly better again.  

Believe it or not!!.

SEE  - we only get told the bad propaganda, 'cos it supports the Govt position.  They daren't let the population as a whole be fully informed -  'cos it proves their lies.  Censorship on this topic is HUGE.
 
Its been happening for years. >:(  


I think I remember that episode Jalane...
Although it was bourbon, not pot..

It featured a State Trooper, another DJ(Venus Flytrap, maybe), and a character called Dr Johnny Fever..who was permanently hung over..

Johnny's reactions got faster, the more he drank..

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Baronvonrort on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:43pm

Emma wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 2:06am:
Wot?
I'm not looking at your vid BVR - what's your point?



Put the bong down Jalane and click on the link you might learn something

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Jun 6th, 2011 at 7:22pm
Years ago I took part in a study on the effects of cannabis on driving.

The "stoned" group had to complete the tests first while they were straight and then in the afternoon do them while stoned.

Heaps got sent away first thing because they turned up stoned. It was pretty funny.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:25pm
Years ago I took part in a study on the effects of cannabis on driving.
Well - what were the results??  :)  Sounds like a fun sort of study. :)


The "stoned" group had to complete the tests first while they were straight and then in the afternoon do them while stoned.

Heaps got sent away first thing because they turned up stoned. It was pretty funny.


;) ;D  Sounds funny.! ;D

And - yeah you're right Gizmo.  It was Dr Johnny Fever.  But - don't remember the other details you refer to.  No big surprise eh?? ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:25pm
There are levels of intoxication with pot, and the fact is that unless you are totally wiped out, you could easily drive better, with a bit of a buzz on.
I used to be a pretty keen surfer, snow skier, and rock climber, all endeavours that require great skill, and co-ordination, and I enjoyed, and excelled at all these activities while pretty well baked.

There are of course limitations, and I do not think we should be promoting that people drive under any level of intoxication, but if we are being honest, we must acknowledge that certain types, and levels of "altered" consciousness, can actually improve peoples abilities, to varying degrees, in some circumstances.

The US style sobriety test is something I have always considered to be something worth developing to a more refined level, so we can actually test peoples ability at the time, rather than just test what is in their system, and assume that they are therefore in a dangerously unfit state.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by helian on Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:44pm

mozzaok wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:25pm:
The US style sobriety test is something I have always considered to be something worth developing to a more refined level, so we can actually test peoples ability at the time, rather than just test what is in their system, and assume that they are therefore in a dangerously unfit state.

How about this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oOPBk7yIZY

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:58pm
Have middle ear probs and you'll flunk a sobriety test.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 6th, 2011 at 10:22pm
Mozzaok - '.......if we are being honest, we must acknowledge that certain types, and levels of "altered" consciousness, can actually improve peoples abilities, to varying degrees, in some circumstances.'

Certainly agree with you -  there is no reason to use a 'one size fits all' approach to this issue.

And we wouldn't have to - if the substance in question wasn't so demonised.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Jun 7th, 2011 at 9:56am
Mozz = the voice of knowledge, wisdom and sharing via a succinct expression of himself to those who are fortunate enough to listen - a truly remarkable human being.

No, I'm not stoned. I wish I could be in the fashion that I desire.
Fact is, that pot is more of a reward than anything else for being at ease with yourself.

I'm not sure why Jas. has such a thing against it. From my understanding, he has worked in the medical profession for a number of years and no doubt would hardly be able to count the true victims of pot on any more than one finger (excluding himself).

To this point, I haven't seen any bonafide fact to substantiate claims that pot hinders pre-existing abilities or conditions to any degree greater than socially acceptable substances or natural personal conditions due to the stresses of our inept societal structure.

Unfortunately, it's the natural state of the vast majority of humans in our society to require a "quick fix" to unwind.
IMO, it's not for us to go beating ourselves about our heads because we have this natural desire to unwind and clear our minds. This is just what we are; our society is not a reflection of us.

Now consider what is acceptable in our society:

Sex sex and more sex is acceptable as a quick fix. That's fine if you never want a good and trusting relationship. Our society likes them to be rare as hen's teeth in order to double the economic demand.

Drugs drugs and more drugs, are acceptable and will be pushed upon you by your practitioner even if you don't want them.
If you're thinking of mellowing out with a joint....have a prescribed pill or a Jim Beam instead - this is what our society teaches us.

Rock 'n' roll: They used to wail their heart, now they're told to wail bs., and they get their troubled lives into the media in an expedient manner.

So.. we've still got our sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, but somehow it's changed. It's pushed upon us as an acceptable package, but it's not really likeable nor acceptable IMO.

Me.., I miss the days of having a quiet joint whilst sitting on a beach, listening to waves crash in, and not having to bother about working the next day, the day after ...or the day after that.
Oh for the grandest (lack of) drug of all called "taking a holiday".

It was once prescribed by many a practitioner to take a longgg holiday. Now it's not.
Now the prescription is to party hard and fast, get over it quick, do what it takes, because we need to keep our economy rolling on. Hurry up and relax you idiot.

If you see that connection that I do, then you will know within yourself that marijuana is not a harmful drug per se'. It's a harmful drug for the continuation of our bs, inept, pathetic excuse for a society.
My grandfather would be rolling turn upon turn upon seeing this crap that he died for.  I know that surely he'd fight against this garbage with at least all of the heart and soul that got him killed way back then...when men were once men.

















 








Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 7th, 2011 at 7:51pm
Fact is, that pot is more of a reward than anything else for being at ease with yourself.
If you see that connection that I do, then you will know within yourself that marijuana is not a harmful drug per se'. It's a harmful drug for the continuation of our bs, inept, pathetic excuse for a society.

Absolutely agree with you Amadd -

I too remember when ......  sigh......  days of yore.

I do see the connection you see. :)

Too much to say - really. :)  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Cybergenesis on Jun 16th, 2011 at 5:24pm
I am bound eternally by great chains to my mistress, Maryjane.

The ignorance in this thread is unworthy of my enlightened self.

Don't ask questions from the academics, smoke marijuana and then you will know the truth!

I challenge you, yes you! Go get high on Maryjane and you will no longer be her enemy. She will blow your mind. She is my ho and I am her pimp!

Yours sincerely,

A very stoned follower of Maryjane.

PS LEGALIZE WEED, DON'T BITCH ON MY WEED, NARCS

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 16th, 2011 at 8:37pm
PS LEGALIZE WEED, DON'T BITCH ON MY WEED, NARCS

Well said young man!! :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Soren on Jun 16th, 2011 at 8:44pm

Cybergenesis wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 5:24pm:
I am bound eternally by great chains to my mistress, Maryjane.

The ignorance in this thread is unworthy of my enlightened self.

Don't ask questions from the academics, smoke marijuana and then you will know the truth!

I challenge you, yes you! Go get high on Maryjane and you will no longer be her enemy. She will blow your mind. She is my ho and I am her pimp!

Yours sincerely,

A very stoned follower of Maryjane.

PS LEGALIZE WEED, DON'T BITCH ON MY WEED, NARCS



Sooo.... you are not looking for a job in the WA mining boom, I take it.

""We couldn't get someone who wasn't a complete loser or a drug addict ... it was causing no end of trouble," he says."
http://af.reuters.com/article/metalsNews/idAFL3E7HF1GC20110615?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Cliff Richard on Jun 16th, 2011 at 8:55pm
don't legalise it

that would reduce its market value

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Cliff Richard on Jun 16th, 2011 at 8:56pm

Coral Sea wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 5:52am:
Intensify the war on drugs to increase profits for drug dealers


Yes

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 16th, 2011 at 8:59pm
gobble gobble gobble gobble

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by GoddyofOz on Jun 26th, 2011 at 10:16pm
Legalize. The very fact that cigarettes are legal and Cannabis is not is very stupid.

What people do in their private lives is none of the governments business.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 26th, 2011 at 11:05pm
Aye  ... well tell that to the govt(s)
Must be among the worst, if not THE worst social policy -  and.... don't you wonder why  such a FUKUP Shitfight has kept on grinding and grinding people down.????
>:(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by GoddyofOz on Jun 27th, 2011 at 1:12am

Emma wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 11:05pm:
Aye  ... well tell that to the govt(s)
Must be among the worst, if not THE worst social policy -  and.... don't you wonder why  such a FUKUP Shitfight has kept on grinding and grinding people down.????
>:(


Not only that, but the War on Drugs has to be the biggest waste of taxpayers money that I have ever seen.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jun 27th, 2011 at 9:54pm
Yep --- even worse than the war on womd or the war on terrorism.  Why??  Because_

the illegal gains made are used to fund terrorist (homegrown and international) activities, and so the Law is making criminals rich -- at the EXPENSE  of every taxpayer.

HEAR THAT ? TAXPAYERS???  YOU indirectly, by failure to act appropriately, are funding terrorist activities, throughout the world.!

NOT as far fetched as you'd like to believe,  -  as you do believe.  'Cos u r all suckers.

One of the great cons of all time - demonise POT and MAKE  TRILLIONS!!!!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by boogieman on Jul 5th, 2011 at 7:07pm

James Bluntus wrote on Jan 3rd, 2011 at 3:08pm:
Legalise, decrimilise or keep illegal?


Just accept reality and remove any penalty at all. We'll use it regardless so why bother? Are they keen to fill up jails and corrupt cops? As that's all they are achieving.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by boogieman on Jul 5th, 2011 at 7:15pm

Emma wrote on Jun 27th, 2011 at 9:54pm:
Yep --- even worse than the war on womd or the war on terrorism.  Why??  Because_

the illegal gains made are used to fund terrorist (homegrown and international) activities, and so the Law is making criminals rich -- at the EXPENSE  of every taxpayer.

HEAR THAT ? TAXPAYERS???  YOU indirectly, by failure to act appropriately, are funding terrorist activities, throughout the world.!

NOT as far fetched as you'd like to believe,  -  as you do believe.  'Cos u r all suckers.

One of the great cons of all time - demonise POT and MAKE  TRILLIONS!!!!


Terrorists? Are you nuts? The people who grow the best are patriots, to their countries. We call them terrorists but they call them freedom fighters.

Of course the govt is the worst terrorist of the lot, particularly the US govt and they are dumb enough to try and stop the dope flowing. How stupid are they?

Suckers? I think you mean puffers don't you? More than a hint of wowserism going on here? How much booze do you drink by the way? And cigarettes, how many of them have you smoked? How much petrol have you used? Polluting the air I need mate, stop it. Smoke dope and stay at home, it's healthy for the planet.

Your plea to taxcpayers should be "LEGALISE IT SO WE DON'T HAVE SO MUCH CRIME AND COSTS FOR THAT AND WE CAN TAX THE SALES TOO."

That's the real story and it is happening in other countries right now. Here? Matter of time mate. Puff puff puff. Do you not understand law is temporary and fleeting?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 5th, 2011 at 7:49pm
boogie you're preaching to the long converted.

The Growers aren't the terrorists,  but the networks that market the drug and make the profit are.!  In this case I'm thinking of heroin from Pakistan and Afghanistan, eg.  - funding Taliban insurgents.  If they don't get the profit, then yeah - prob lee ynks .

[b]Your plea to taxcpayers should be "LEGALISE IT SO WE DON'T HAVE SO MUCH CRIME AND COSTS FOR THAT AND WE CAN TAX THE SALES TOO."

That's the real story and it is happening in other countries right now. Here? Matter of time mate. Puff puff puff. Do you not understand law is temporary and fleeting? ,
[/b]

ABSO- f'n-LUTELY!!!  If you went back a bit on this thread you would see I consistently hold similar views.
Sadly, THESE laws aren't fleeting enough.!!

I've been waiting 40 yrs- for the world to catch up.!!!!

:-[ :(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 6th, 2011 at 9:15am

Cybergenesis wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 5:24pm:
I am bound eternally by great chains to my mistress, Maryjane.

The ignorance in this thread is unworthy of my enlightened self.

Don't ask questions from the academics, smoke marijuana and then you will know the truth!

I challenge you, yes you! Go get high on Maryjane and you will no longer be her enemy. She will blow your mind. She is my ho and I am her pimp!

Yours sincerely,

A very stoned follower of Maryjane.

PS LEGALIZE WEED, DON'T BITCH ON MY WEED, NARCS


That's way too subtle for marijuana smokers  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 6th, 2011 at 9:20am

mozzaok wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:25pm:
There are levels of intoxication with pot, and the fact is that unless you are totally wiped out, you could easily drive better, with a bit of a buzz on.
I used to be a pretty keen surfer, snow skier, and rock climber, all endeavours that require great skill, and co-ordination, and I enjoyed, and excelled at all these activities while pretty well baked.

There are of course limitations, and I do not think we should be promoting that people drive under any level of intoxication, but if we are being honest, we must acknowledge that certain types, and levels of "altered" consciousness, can actually improve peoples abilities, to varying degrees, in some circumstances.

The US style sobriety test is something I have always considered to be something worth developing to a more refined level, so we can actually test peoples ability at the time, rather than just test what is in their system, and assume that they are therefore in a dangerously unfit state.



You have to look at the whole picture. We are streets ahead of the US in terms of testing for impairment.

If somebody slows down and drives extremely carefully as a result of a cannabis hit, that should be good. - right?

- What about the effect of a slow driver on other drivers?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Jul 6th, 2011 at 5:24pm

Quote:
- What about the effect of a slow driver on other drivers?


What about it?

What about the "Wipe off 5" and the "Slowing down won't kill you" ad campaigns? Should we be able to sue these advertisiers?

Unfortunately you won't find any bonafide data on the effects of driving whilst under the influence of pot as all indications point to it having a negligible (if not non-existent) effect on driving ability and a positive net effect upon the road toll.

Pot is more likely to cause one to drive below the bounds of one's actual ability, whereas even a glass or two of alcohol is more likely to cause one to drive above the bounds of actual ability.

The point at which a person's ability becomes hindered purely due to pot would probably be debatable to even the most hardened of pot users.
Personally, from my limited experience, I wouldn't know where that point is, or if it even exists.









Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 6th, 2011 at 10:36pm
the essence of this is ---  LEGALISE IT.

Prohibition results in FAR MORE HARM, than GOOD. :(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 7th, 2011 at 9:43am

Amadd wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 5:24pm:

Quote:
- What about the effect of a slow driver on other drivers?


What about it?

What about the "Wipe off 5" and the "Slowing down won't kill you" ad campaigns? Should we be able to sue these advertisiers?

Unfortunately you won't find any bonafide data on the effects of driving whilst under the influence of pot as all indications point to it having a negligible (if not non-existent) effect on driving ability and a positive net effect upon the road toll.

Pot is more likely to cause one to drive below the bounds of one's actual ability, whereas even a glass or two of alcohol is more likely to cause one to drive above the bounds of actual ability.

The point at which a person's ability becomes hindered purely due to pot would probably be debatable to even the most hardened of pot users.
Personally, from my limited experience, I wouldn't know where that point is, or if it even exists.




In summary: - mood swings, aggressive behaviour, slow reaction time....

If you search the www, you'll find lots of advocacy sites for marijuana that state that it don't have no effect, no way no how.....dude.

Ignoring such casual studies (I did not inhale) and concentrating on scientific studies however, there is plenty of evidence.

In summary:


Quote:
Laboratory studies have shown that cannabis compromises reaction time, attention, decision making, time and distance perception, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, and concentration. These studies have the advantage of being able to test the effects of large doses of cannabis under controlled conditions, but it is unclear to what extent these results apply to real- world driving.


http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-and-driving

Of course to you dudes, such data is not bonafide because these scientific whackos never smoked a joint in their lives.... .... and you don't like their results....... so there.  


Emma wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 10:36pm:
the essence of this is ---  LEGALISE IT.

Prohibition results in FAR MORE HARM, than GOOD. :(


wgt dudette!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Jul 7th, 2011 at 10:52am

Quote:
In summary: - mood swings, aggressive behaviour, slow reaction time....


LOL.  2 out of 3 would only be possible symptoms of NOT having weed.  The other is debatable, and highly dependent on the dosage and time elapsed since taking it.

A wee bit of advcie though - invoking the sterotype of a stoner ie the 'california surfer duuuuude' just makes you look silly, and doesn't make your argument any more compelling.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Jul 7th, 2011 at 11:00am
That's a terrible argument there muso.  :(
I'm really disappointed in that.

Strawmen, bs, non-replies, discolouration of facts..etc. You've just about included all of the worst aspects of the human condition there muso.

I'll get back to that extremely disappointing reply, but not now.
I'm too disappointed to reply atm. You've really disheartened me with that rubbish.





Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by boogieman on Jul 7th, 2011 at 2:07pm

James Bluntus wrote on Jan 3rd, 2011 at 3:08pm:
Legalise, decrimilise or keep illegal?


What do you reckon Jimbo?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by boogieman on Jul 7th, 2011 at 2:11pm

Emma wrote on Jul 5th, 2011 at 7:49pm:
boogie you're preaching to the long converted.

The Growers aren't the terrorists,  but the networks that market the drug and make the profit are.!  In this case I'm thinking of heroin from Pakistan and Afghanistan, eg.  - funding Taliban insurgents.  If they don't get the profit, then yeah - prob lee ynks .

[b]Your plea to taxcpayers should be "LEGALISE IT SO WE DON'T HAVE SO MUCH CRIME AND COSTS FOR THAT AND WE CAN TAX THE SALES TOO."

That's the real story and it is happening in other countries right now. Here? Matter of time mate. Puff puff puff. Do you not understand law is temporary and fleeting? ,
[/b]

ABSO- f'n-LUTELY!!!  If you went back a bit on this thread you would see I consistently hold similar views.
Sadly, THESE laws aren't fleeting enough.!!

I've been waiting 40 yrs- for the world to catch up.!!!!

:-[ :(


Ditto. Afraid they are in ban mode. Ban everything and stop people doing what they want to do. Has never worked and never will. It just creates criminals doesn't it?

What will they do after smoking and alcohol are banned? There won't be anyone left on the banning side will there? We'll all be criminals and can take it all back.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 7th, 2011 at 10:56pm
Yeah Boogie

and MUSO!!!! what are you saying..???......................These studies have the advantage of being able to test the effects of large doses of cannabis under controlled conditions, but it is unclear to what extent these results apply to real- world driving.


But you will back them ? - these 'scientific studies ' - so - called?, over massive experience that is au contraire??.

Haven't I informed you before????  your views have no reality - in the REAL WORLD.
These scientific studies are of ONLY scientific interest.  And how is it you ignore 'scientific studies' which DO NOT support your view?  HMMM?
And - after all- don't we often find- in time- that these conclusions - drawn from outdated or biased data- are - in fact incorrect.??

Ignore your comrades at your peril. :) ;)




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 7th, 2011 at 11:16pm
Oh Yeah - Boogie?
TPTB  (the powers that be)  (just made that up by the way! :))   do reek somewhat  with the whiff of '1984' - and Big Brother.
We all know this - whether or not we acknowledge it. !!
And many embrace it!!!! as evidenced by many comments on this thread, whether the posters 'see' it or not.

Personally I'm for freedom of thought - and experience,   and opposed to the seemingly obsessive need for Govt to 'control' the people,  -- to the extent that  'they' can say get pissed and have a good old party -  get stoned and you are damned to eventual madness and death.!!!!!!!!!!
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :D :D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 8th, 2011 at 7:54am

... wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 10:52am:

Quote:
In summary: - mood swings, aggressive behaviour, slow reaction time....


LOL.  2 out of 3 would only be possible symptoms of NOT having weed.  The other is debatable, and highly dependent on the dosage and time elapsed since taking it.
.



If that's the case, I've never had those symptoms. I've never smoked week either.

The point I'm making is that the most dangerous symptoms are associated with withdrawal and long term effects associated with its use - not necessarily acute symptoms, apart from the slow reaction time of course - and I doubt  if anybody could reasonably dispute the latter.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 8th, 2011 at 8:03am

Emma wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 10:56pm:
Yeah Boogie

and MUSO!!!! what are you saying..???.....................


Haven't I informed you before????  your views have no reality - in the REAL WORLD.
These scientific studies are of ONLY scientific interest.  And how is it you ignore 'scientific studies' which DO NOT support your view?  HMMM?


I do beg your pardon. I now realise that I have to inhale to impart any "rationality" to the argument.  I need to partake in the ganja inhalation ceremony to gain entry to the portals of your real world.

I think I prefer my REAL WORLD to yours.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Jul 8th, 2011 at 10:01am

muso wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 7:54am:

... wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 10:52am:

Quote:
In summary: - mood swings, aggressive behaviour, slow reaction time....


LOL.  2 out of 3 would only be possible symptoms of NOT having weed.  The other is debatable, and highly dependent on the dosage and time elapsed since taking it.
.



If that's the case, I've never had those symptoms. I've never smoked week either.

The point I'm making is that the most dangerous symptoms are associated with withdrawal and long term effects associated with its use - not necessarily acute symptoms, apart from the slow reaction time of course - and I doubt  if anybody could reasonably dispute the latter.



You'd be surprised!!! As I said, it's dependent on the dose and time elpased since taking it.  Now I know you won't believe anything unless it's been published in peer-reviewed journals, but us here in the real world have a thing called experience.  Experience tells us that in low doses, cannabis seems to enhance concentration, not hinder it.  
Besides, with 18 years martia; arts training under my belt, I can safely say that my drunken reaction time would be quicker than average joes sober reaction time.  Well....maybe not super drunk, but merry.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:01pm

... wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 10:01am:

muso wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 7:54am:

... wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 10:52am:

Quote:
In summary: - mood swings, aggressive behaviour, slow reaction time....


LOL.  2 out of 3 would only be possible symptoms of NOT having weed.  The other is debatable, and highly dependent on the dosage and time elapsed since taking it.
.



If that's the case, I've never had those symptoms. I've never smoked week either.

The point I'm making is that the most dangerous symptoms are associated with withdrawal and long term effects associated with its use - not necessarily acute symptoms, apart from the slow reaction time of course - and I doubt  if anybody could reasonably dispute the latter.



You'd be surprised!!! As I said, it's dependent on the dose and time elpased since taking it.  


That figures.

So the longer the time elapsed since taking it, the more likely you are to agree that it causes slow reaction time?  :P

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:06pm

muso wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

... wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 10:01am:

muso wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 7:54am:

... wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 10:52am:

Quote:
In summary: - mood swings, aggressive behaviour, slow reaction time....


LOL.  2 out of 3 would only be possible symptoms of NOT having weed.  The other is debatable, and highly dependent on the dosage and time elapsed since taking it.
.



If that's the case, I've never had those symptoms. I've never smoked week either.

The point I'm making is that the most dangerous symptoms are associated with withdrawal and long term effects associated with its use - not necessarily acute symptoms, apart from the slow reaction time of course - and I doubt  if anybody could reasonably dispute the latter.



You'd be surprised!!! As I said, it's dependent on the dose and time elpased since taking it.  


That figures.

So the longer the time elapsed since taking it, the more likely you are to agree that it causes slow reaction time?  :P




Peoples reaction times get slower as they age, do they not?

So why are 80 year olds allowed to drive?  Surely they'd have slower reaction times than a 21 year old who is blazed off his nut.

aaanyhoo...we're not talking about it being legal to drive under the influence, we're talking about it being legal fullstop.  How quick does one's reaction times need to be to simply go about their daily business?

I doubt anyone could dispute that IF (and that's a huuuuge if) weed makes one 'aggressive' and have 'mood swings' alcohol does at least twice as bad.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:33pm

... wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:06pm:
I doubt anyone could dispute that IF (and that's a huuuuge if) weed makes one 'aggressive' and have 'mood swings' alcohol does at least twice as bad.  


No argument there. That's why they have roadside testing. Of course that roadside testing doen't detect all impairment by any means.

Studies (eg Royal Adelaide Hospital Trauma study 2007) show that where admitted drivers of road accidents tested positive for drugs or alcohol, alcohol was the biggest factor in road accidents, followed by marijuana. Here are the figures:

Alcohol - 22.6%
THC - 17.5%
Benzodiazepines - 14.7%
Amphetamines - 6.9%
Opiates - 3.3%

As you can see, benzodiazepines is also a biggie. There are far too many people driving around under the influence of sleeping tablets, sedatives etc.

I'm not the one arguing that THC is worse than alcohol. It's almost as bad in terms of total effect.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:35pm

Quote:
I'm not the one arguing that THC is worse than alcohol. It's almost as bad in terms of total effect.



By what measure is it even in the same league?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:39pm

... wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:06pm:
Peoples reaction times get slower as they age, do they not?

So why are 80 year olds allowed to drive?  Surely they'd have slower reaction times than a 21 year old who is blazed off his nut.
 


If you want the most accurate guage of that, you just have to look at insurance premiums. These guys in the insurance industry make it their business to know who has the most accidents, and it's not the 80+ age range either.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:41pm

... wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:35pm:

Quote:
I'm not the one arguing that THC is worse than alcohol. It's almost as bad in terms of total effect.



By what measure is it even in the same league?



Look at the studies. I quoted one of them in the last post.  There are heaps of others from overseas. Not sure if they are online, but I have most of them on my computer at work.  

Edit - I just found another website that quotes from that study (how about that?):

http://www.bsspsych.com.au/fitnessForWork.cfm

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:49pm

muso wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:39pm:

... wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:06pm:
Peoples reaction times get slower as they age, do they not?

So why are 80 year olds allowed to drive?  Surely they'd have slower reaction times than a 21 year old who is blazed off his nut.
 


If you want the most accurate guage of that, you just have to look at insurance premiums. These guys in the insurance industry make it their business to know who has the most accidents, and it's not the 80+ age range either.  



Hmmmm....I don't trust insurance companies, they just seem to charge what they can get away with.  For instance, it's common knowledge that women pay lower preiums than men, becasue supposedly they are safer drivers, right?

Wrong.


Quote:
Subject to the data provided and the assumptions on which the analysis was based, this report shows some remarkable findings regarding casualty accident risks in Victoria during 1994. These include:

•the generally higher casualty accident rate per kilometre driven by female drivers compared to males. For more severe crashes these differences tended to disappear and there were no statistically significant differences between female and male fatal crash risks

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc088.html


and in a simialr vein to this, 80 year olds don't do a whole lot of driving compared to other groups.  Overall numbver of accidents don't take this into account.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:53pm

muso wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:41pm:

... wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:35pm:

Quote:
I'm not the one arguing that THC is worse than alcohol. It's almost as bad in terms of total effect.



By what measure is it even in the same league?



Look at the studies. I quoted one of them in the last post.  There are heaps of others from overseas. Not sure if they are online, but I have most of them on my computer at work.  

Edit - I just found another website that quotes from that study (how about that?):

http://www.bsspsych.com.au/fitnessForWork.cfm



the study seems to fall into the same slippery slope argument that they all do. - Nobody is saying it should be allowed to blaze up whenever and wherever you want.  You wouldn't (or shouldn't) go to work pissed, so why would you go to work stoned?  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 8th, 2011 at 10:08pm
This is all good guys - it becomes clearer and clearer, so lets keep going. :)

If I had some of my old reference books I'd thro in a few studies too.  They went  -  west ---  and I believe some are now considered illegal!!!. SHOCK!  Censorship Warning.

And frankly I dislike computers intensely, -- so I won't be  'googling' it.  OK?

Muso - your penchant for throwing in OOOOOOOOps got to go

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 8th, 2011 at 10:37pm
:D I'm back

So Muso - your penchant for throwing statistics at every argument is sort of endearing. ;)
Your determination to cling to........ 'what's on paper,..............it's real!'.   :-?

Sorry dear- the world is ruled by chaos not order.

Your use of same is like a fundamentalist religious - using his interpretation of his written doctrine,  to support his own personal view.   Or  - even .. an Economist.!!!or  Accountant.!!

AND - you are welcome to it --

MY motto  - one of my motto's -
not always possible - I know -

Is Live and Let Live.

SO -  I'll digress...............

Oh if only we could !!L&LL!!!!!!!!       -      this species of creature we belong to, in this urbanised society in particular,  is  CHIMP. !!!!  Very chimp oriented.

Personally ---------..... :)
I vote for BONNOBO'S.!!!!!!!!!.   :) :) :)

If you haven't looked into B v C   or JUST Bonnobo - you should.!

But seems obvious there are more chimps than bonnobos.   A real shame that!. :(





Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 8th, 2011 at 10:42pm
Oh -- yeah -- also   ::)

Tee hee -- Wes-  Mr Pipes -  the Insurance bit?  ;D ;D ;D
HOW any 80yr olds ARE driving now.  ::)
My thoughts exactly. Bloody Load of Bollocks Muso.!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 8th, 2011 at 11:01pm
Oh -- yeah --  :)  Martial Arts--   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Most excellent.

So much improvement in my physical self over the yrs---- old injuries--  (prior to starting in martial arts at a relatively late stage of life) --- old injuries no longer allow me to participate in my preferred forms.  However - to those with a genuine interest in their long term health - as they age -  I can only suggest shifting to the Taoist path and Tai Chi.

I have trained in Japanese and Chinese forms. My love is Ju Jutsu -  my solace Tai Chi.

And - I find this form difficult.! Against my previously martial intent.  It is hard to allow that knowledge to adapt to the Tao.    I have to confess - I have failed.       Which is no doubt obvious to anyone who reads my posts.

 BUT I still remember - and I do try to encompass the principles in my daily life.  Occasionally I succeed.

You know?

So - why not start a Martial Arts topic.  ??????

Must be lots of us out there - past and present.!!!!!!!  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 9th, 2011 at 9:57pm
Jalane, I would leave it for at least 12 hours before you drive anywhere.


Quote:
So Muso - your penchant for throwing statistics at every argument is sort of endearing.


OK, I'll try to introduce less facts and data in future and just "go with the gut feeling" (But you won't get me to inhale)

Don't you hate it when people spoil your argument by bringing in actual data and statistics?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 9th, 2011 at 11:35pm
Well Muso  NO  I don't. :)

Don't you hate it when people spoil your argument by bringing in actual data and statistics?

I don't 'Cos
 A) I try hard not to hate anything,  ( except Indian  mynah birds  >:(     - I try to hate cane toads, the ugly critters - but find myself almost sorry for them, - cos I'm out to get them!!) :)

B) Haven't seen any 'actual data and statistics' that do spoil the argument.! :) :)

See Data -- and   Statistics ....  are just that.  
They don't constitutue information about anything, without the vision/ability/knowledge/wisdom/training ... to place that data within a significantly large enough frame of reference or context, .to provide helpful 'intelligence'.

Interestingly though - (do as I say not as I do),  the data you provided  .... suggests that Heroin is far and away the safest drug, legal or illegal, to be DUI.  And extrapolating -  ie the better in control you are - DUI,  the less likely you are to be in a vehicle accident caused by being under the influence!! therefore  the less likely you are to show up in statistics.!!  
Helpful??


Personally- I believe that most drugs currently prohibited should be legalised, including Heroin.  :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 10th, 2011 at 12:04am
And on the stats - Heroin issue -  

You might say that it is skewed by the base numbers of users, for each of your drug categories.  In other words the stats reflect the... hm!!..popularity and rate of use in that community. THAT would seem obvious!

But... .just one issue .....stats from SA - where a different approach to marijuana has been operating, cannot be applied to the wider community with any credibility, whether or not it serves your argument... It is entirely questionable that your stats in anyway reflect on the actuality, as you claim.
And Heroin???????
There are many more heroin users living a normal productive life,  - as much as they can in this ludicrous sad WOD environment - -------------than any of YOU lot -  you  know - the non-inhalers- would ever dream of.
::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 10th, 2011 at 6:24pm

Emma wrote on Jul 9th, 2011 at 11:35pm:
Interestingly though - (do as I say not as I do),  the data you provided  .... suggests that Heroin is far and away the safest drug, legal or illegal, to be DUI.  And extrapolating -  ie the better in control you are - DUI,  the less likely you are to be in a vehicle accident caused by being under the influence!! therefore  the less likely you are to show up in statistics.!!  


It doesn't. Heroin per se is remarkably rare in road accidents. Opiates include things like codeine tablets. Take too many of those and there is absolutely no way you should be driving. I unintentionally took too many once trying to get rid of a bad flu. The effect was terrible. I had a major case of shakes and I felt like I wanted to vomit all the time.

I try to avoid drugs as far as possible. I do like a nice cup of  coffee, but I'm careful to limit the number per day.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 10th, 2011 at 8:34pm

muso wrote on Jul 10th, 2011 at 6:24pm:

Emma wrote on Jul 9th, 2011 at 11:35pm:
Interestingly though - (do as I say not as I do),  the data you provided  .... suggests that Heroin is far and away the safest drug, legal or illegal, to be DUI.  And extrapolating -  ie the better in control you are - DUI,  the less likely you are to be in a vehicle accident caused by being under the influence!! therefore  the less likely you are to show up in statistics.!!  


It doesn't. Heroin per se is remarkably rare in road accidents. Opiates include things like codeine tablets. Take too many of those and there is absolutely no way you should be driving. I unintentionally took too many once trying to get rid of a bad flu. The effect was terrible. I had a major case of shakes and I felt like I wanted to vomit all the time.

I try to avoid drugs as far as possible. I do like a nice cup of  coffee, but I'm careful to limit the number per day.  


Quite right too. I can't tolerate coffee, altho i do love the smell.  No its the caffeine.! I guess I'm faast enough! cos coffee or sudafed- type drugs make me feel shaky, sweaty, with an increased awareness of my heart rate -etc - YUK!   No thanks.!   BUT  I do enjoy immensely - a cup a good tea.or 6.  I drink as much as I feel like drinking, and am definitely addicted to tea.
Seems I had my first at 6 mths of age. ! But if yo gotta be addicted to something - I'd recommend tea.!!!! :) ;)

And your little experiment with codeine - to help with a particularly nasty flu - was not wise, given your relatively pristine body.  Thy body is thy temple,  apparently .
See -  unknowingly, you did overdose -  and of all Opiates -  CODEINE has to be the most harmful to the system that has to process it through your body.
AND  ???hmm :o???  it is the ONLY opiate that can be purchased over the Pharmacy counter, without a prescription, as far as I know.!!!(does THAT make sense? No.) >:(
It is a highly 'refined' product - often combined with another killer to the kidneys, Paracetamol.  Scaringly easy to do permanent damage to yourself if you overindulge in any such mixed product. Or straight Parac. for that matter.  People successfully and deliberately commit suicide by overdosing on good old Panadol. Did you know that?

Hey- they even sell it to parents, to give to infants!!!  (Much easier for the parent don't you know? )

I believe in giving one's body a relatively simple ride. Drink lots of water, eat when you feel like it, no cordials or cola's and such, only mineral or soda water,  -  eat what you feel like eating - but that excludes ALL fast food multi-nat.s - and fast food generally. Fish and chips once in a while - a BBQ Chook from the supermarket once evry few months, if that frequently .... the only Fast food I will admit to eating is -yep- Subway- but even then only very ocassionally,  but- more often than Chook!
MY POINT?  
Everyone needs to be more aware of what they are putting into their bodies.  DRUGS  are significant no doubt about it -  BUT food - nutrition -  is much more important.

SO  - my point is - all this angst so publicly generated ..publicly funded, all over ...is really a red herring - in the wider scheme of things.
 Why do people waste their time so - crying out about something they've never even tried, --- when there are so many more important things in the world that would benefit from a bit of passion.???

Why do people deliberately turn on their own (family, tribe, clan) and commit bloody murder? Literally and figuratively?

Well -  I guess if I knew the answers to that I could found my own religion.!!
:)









Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 11th, 2011 at 11:46am
Any medical practitioner or nurse will tell you about the dangers of opiates, including pethidine, morphine, papaverine etc.

If you exceed the dose for a certain person,  it can result in total circulatory collapse. The dose depends on the weight of a person, their blood pressure, any other medications they happen to be on, their age etc.

Even when the doctor (or rated nurse) administers the drug, they have to monitor the patient carefully. Low blood pressure or hypotension is a contraindication. Most people don't know they have it.

To say that Heroin is the safest drug is complete nonsense. Heroin plus alcohol is the most common cause of death through "unintentional" overdose of addictive drugs, although deliberate suicide with barbiturates,  benzodiazepine etc  are even more common. When I say unintentional, I mean not obviously intentional. (eg suicide notes)

Many people die each year through opiate overdose in hospitals - a form of unofficial euthanasia. Some medical staff will tell you that unofficially.  It's impossible to tell if it's deliberate or not.

If you think that codeine is much different to morphine, then again you are misinformed. Codeine metabolises to morphine in the body.  The only difference in formula is a methyl group.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Jul 11th, 2011 at 12:49pm
If you've got a heroin habit, you've always got heroin in your system and the vast majority of doses you take are purely maintenance doses - they don't give you any stoned effect but rather just allow you to continue to feel straight (i.e. neither hanging out or stoned).

In those cases, I suspect the impairment would be negligable - perhaps not even detectable. You'll pass any sobriety test.

Take too much or have no tolerance and the stuff will knock you off your feet (rather blissfully I might add).

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 11th, 2011 at 11:27pm
True words....... Life goes on.

Muso - I am not saying Heroin is the safest drug.  It was in context of your 'statistics' - Yeah?

As for Codeine -  that IS my point!  That Codeine metabolises to Morphine !
In the body.   Your organs are made to work to absorb, dilute and break this down , ending up as Morphine - in your Liver,  isn't it.  ?  So - why Codeine?? at all??  

Because it is sufficiently divorced from the original 'compound' to be acceptable????
Not H?
-  What other reason can you offer for the failure to use safer drugs than those synthetic opiates you mentioned.??

Reasons other than the same old same ...?    Could it be???  :o  

that big drug companies make millions and millions of dollars by replicating, torturously one would imagine, given the profits they so righteously enjoy, these compounds, - all of which can trace their lineage back to the Poppy.

What a ridiculously unnecessary and greedy market they profit from.  Drug companies.

And - I note your non - response to my quite specific comments about Paracetamol -  OR  -  PANADOL,  as evry brainwashed person calls it.!!Including Doctors.  
How so? :-?


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Jul 12th, 2011 at 10:09am
It's a real can of worms when your talking about the relativity of one drug to another.
Most times it comes down to the value of the resultant drug in respects to a capitalist idealism.
IMO, these aspects are very closely related. Much moreso than than the closely linked molecules of particular substances.

Yes we are adult human beings, and yes we like to take mind altering substances. Not much has changed since about the time that mankind discovered the ability to make war on one another.

Using Muso's logic, this would be sure proof that drugs will therefore cause wars. ..I don't disagree that they can in fact be a pretext for wars when it includes money. Hello (world's worst president ever) George - "Hail to the thief", said Radiohead.

Overwhelmingly, the drugs that are most widely desired, have a propensity against wars and fighting.
One of the most potent, and probably the most sinister legal drug in use today causes wholesale aggression and family disunity.

If we were to truly govern ourselves, then we'd have websites such as this one http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/home.php not only at our fingertips, but recommended as a guide beyond the obvious lack of knowledge that politicians have on such subjects.

When a government tells you to take responsibility, they are in fact meaning for you to take responsibility for the life that they demand you to lead. They don't want you to think for yourself, they don't want you to have your own life, they want you to be theirs.
And you'd better believe that they want to feed you drugs that will make you want to fight for their own self-interests.

But anyway, back to the subject of pot.
Obsolutely no proof exists that it is significantly harmful to one's health or to the health of others. Most probably the opposite.

Of course, it was definitely harmful to the U.S. in Vietnam. The yankee hierarchy obviously hate it...and so should we.



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by GoddyofOz on Jul 13th, 2011 at 8:56pm

Amadd wrote on Jul 12th, 2011 at 10:09am:
It's a real can of worms when your talking about the relativity of one drug to another.
Most times it comes down to the value of the resultant drug in respects to a capitalist idealism.
IMO, these aspects are very closely related. Much moreso than than the closely linked molecules of particular substances.

Yes we are adult human beings, and yes we like to take mind altering substances. Not much has changed since about the time that mankind discovered the ability to make war on one another.

Using Muso's logic, this would be sure proof that drugs will therefore cause wars. ..I don't disagree that they can in fact be a pretext for wars when it includes money. Hello (world's worst president ever) George - "Hail to the thief", said Radiohead.

Overwhelmingly, the drugs that are most widely desired, have a propensity against wars and fighting.
One of the most potent, and probably the most sinister legal drug in use today causes wholesale aggression and family disunity.

If we were to truly govern ourselves, then we'd have websites such as this one http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/home.php not only at our fingertips, but recommended as a guide beyond the obvious lack of knowledge that politicians have on such subjects.

When a government tells you to take responsibility, they are in fact meaning for you to take responsibility for the life that they demand you to lead. They don't want you to think for yourself, they don't want you to have your own life, they want you to be theirs.
And you'd better believe that they want to feed you drugs that will make you want to fight for their own self-interests.

But anyway, back to the subject of pot.
Obsolutely no proof exists that it is significantly harmful to one's health or to the health of others. Most probably the opposite.

Of course, it was definitely harmful to the U.S. in Vietnam. The yankee hierarchy obviously hate it...and so should we.


Yes, because following the Americans lead has ALWAYS been the best decision....Did you detect the sarcasm there?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 13th, 2011 at 10:26pm
Yep - good old sarcasm - the lowest form of humour, someone once called it.  Don't see why  - although - being such a literal soul, I sometimes (or more  :-[)........ miss it.!!! Even tho I employ it myself all the time. Though usually only in person to person verbal communication.  And on this forum, now and then.

See  - people's brains do work in different ways, and I find it a constant
in any argument over '' whatever?" - that the parties involved,
having explained THEIR view,
fully expect  that the other will listen, understand, and in so comprehending their argument ,  will  AGREE. !!!!!!!!!!!!  :-?  Conflict arises when one is NOT convinced, obviously, if the issue is important..

I know I expect to sometimes  instil enlightenment when I expand on my views, and I'm pretty damn sure that this applies to most who post.  Because we believe our view has value in the world - it is EGO.  

So - ??

-  So what?  This sort of touches on another topic I post to - about 'Evil'.  And another one - on the carbon /CC miasma.

People will believe what they do, and it really isn't worth raising a sweat over it, if its something against your beliefs.  Live and Let Live.
So?

Legalise it!!!!!!!!!  :)


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Jul 14th, 2011 at 7:27am

Quote:
Yes, because following the Americans lead has ALWAYS been the best decision....Did you detect the sarcasm there?


Yes, I was being sacaaaaastic.
It's no secret that U.S. soldiers in particular have been administered a range of hard drugs in past and present wars as an aid to keep them fighting.
Marijuana serves only as a tool for peace and is therefore hated by all bullyboy governments.







 





Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 14th, 2011 at 12:10pm
Don't interpret me as being totally inflexible. In a recent meeting on drugs testing, most of the rest of them had the "Sack em" mentality. I asked what they would do if somebody tested positive for opiates? - sack 'em. (yeah, nods and smug smiles around the room)

What if the test showed that it was Cold and Flu tablets.
- Oh that's different.  They could go on working.

You do know that a metabolite for codeine is morphine?
- Yeah but there's another one. They can tell that it's cold and flu tablets. We have to be reasonable.

I think you're missing the point. What you're saying is that somebody could extract the codeine from say cold and flu tablets and get totally high on the morphine metabolite, but they would get off and even be allowed to keep working, while a "nasty" heroin user who was borderline positive would be out the door before you can talk.  

- no response (puzzled looks).

It's not a clear cut issue by any means.




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Jul 14th, 2011 at 3:40pm
At the last place I worked at that had random drug testing, returning a positive for opiates and then saying you'd had something like a Panadeine didn't cut it - It still counted as a positive result and you were sent home and were retested the next day.

You could officially declare you'd taken something containing Codeine (or any prescribed Opiate) upon arrival at work and if by chance there was a random test your Opiate result would be ignored. Declare that you'd taken Codeine too often and you'd find yourself in all kinds of bother.

First positive you got sent home for the day. Second positive and you got drug counselling. Third positive was dismissal time.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 17th, 2011 at 9:23pm
Well  -  I think - and have for a while, that such drug-testing 'policies'  are suspect-  albeit a claim that its in the interests of public safety.  Shite!
I have never faced such a situation in a workplace - ...  and do not think it efficacious for the better running of any enterprise.!
The thought that an employer !  - who wants my labor,  can lawfully do same, is really a reflection, is it not?, of Fascism at work in our own good old Oz society.!!! >:(

If you want to try and consider this from a human rights/obvious perspective -
it shows just how far right / extreme our laws have become, in some very important spheres..... I needn't name them, they get yelled at us every time we turn on the NEWS!!!!!
And - this Fascism seeks to encompass us all in its grasp.  

For a PERFECT EXAMPLE -  listen to the L/N Coalition- and particularly - yep - u got it , the rabid rabbit Abbott.
He is trying VERY HARD , to get all you closet fascists to do his job for  him.  Suckers!!

Yuch Yic eeuw -  any one I hear spouting such populist garbage to all and sundry, loses my respect. :)

Not that you would care less of course.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Jul 19th, 2011 at 7:51am

Quote:
Well  -  I think - and have for a while, that such drug-testing 'policies'  are suspect-  albeit a claim that its in the interests of public safety.  Shite!
I have never faced such a situation in a workplace - ...  and do not think it efficacious for the better running of any enterprise.!


Good point.

I can't think offhand of any situation where I have felt my personal safety to be compromised because of this "mythical" illegal drug problem within the workplace.
Alcohol ..yes I've seen it a few times. Other drugs..no.

Notwithstanding the fact that any threat to workplace safety that I have seen due to alcohol is primarily noticed and dealt with first through the workplace community.
If there were any real problems with drugs in the workplace, I have no doubt that they would also first be dealt with within the workplace community.

Ridiculous, ineffective, insulting drugs tests are a blight on privacy and freedom, and also an insult to the real effectiveness of what a "quiet word" from a trusted colleague might bring.

The message, of course, is to not trust in your pissy little communities.
BB has bigger and better plans for you.









Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Sprintcyclist on Jul 19th, 2011 at 8:39am

There may be a legal case coming up in NZ to test the legalisation of pot for legitimate medical uses.

Apparently by international laws govt should allow people to have medicine.

the banning of pot to some people for medical uses contravenes that law.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 19th, 2011 at 8:57am

Amadd wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 7:51am:

Quote:
Well  -  I think - and have for a while, that such drug-testing 'policies'  are suspect-  albeit a claim that its in the interests of public safety.  Shite!
I have never faced such a situation in a workplace - ...  and do not think it efficacious for the better running of any enterprise.!


Good point.

I can't think offhand of any situation where I have felt my personal safety to be compromised because of this "mythical" illegal drug problem within the workplace.
Alcohol ..yes I've seen it a few times. Other drugs..no.


The time I accidentally took too many Cold and Flu tablets, I felt totally unsafe.  If that's what morphine (a metabolite of codeine) does to the system, then there should be tests.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Jul 19th, 2011 at 9:36am

Quote:
The time I accidentally took too many Cold and Flu tablets, I felt totally unsafe.  If that's what morphine (a metabolite of codeine) does to the system, then there should be tests.


Did you have the common sense to realise that you felt unsafe to perform tasks?
Did you make your colleagues feel unsafe by your presence in this state?
What did you do about it?

Should I trust that you might take a common sense course of action?

I'm very sure that you'd have your wits about you Muso.






Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Argus Tuft on Jul 19th, 2011 at 8:00pm
It's funny, but the puritan USA has moved far closer to essentially legalising marijuana for "medicinal purposes" than supposedly hedonistic Australia.

My God - maybe it's just another sign of the End Times!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 20th, 2011 at 12:07am
yeah Argus Tuft  ( tufty ) it's a bit of a worry.

Mind you, those US states that are more realistic in this- are not your bible-belt states, as far as I know.  Guess that is an advantage with having so many state governments and a 'recognition, by some at least' that one size DOES NOT FIT ALL.  Unlike here - where peer approval, polls and popularity seem to be the most important things to many australians. I'll bet you anything, that many public pot decriers, are secret smokers - in the privacy of their home.
And there is another problem with the WOD.  U might!? smoke??  your home is not yours, your privacy disappears, and you face punitive legal and social losses.
 
WHY???   don't ask me - I've said it all too many times before.

I'd much prefer police used their time and our money, more productively, but the Law is the law. However stupid and harmful it is.  

Go Figure.!!!!!!! :(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 20th, 2011 at 12:17am
Sprint -  I can only say  Go NZ.  Always ahead of OZ, whatever the issue.  
Good luck.

Of course such a case would never happen in OZ, 'cos we don't give a stuff about international laws.
Not a continental.
No - Oz shamefully ignores those international laws that don't suit us.  

That's right, shamefully.!!!  And all you whinging right wing fascists that rant on this forum are culprits.

Pathetic hypocrits- generally.  Its plain, obvious, and visible evryday!!!

And Too Too sad. :-[

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on Jul 20th, 2011 at 9:33am

Amadd wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 7:51am:

Quote:
Well  -  I think - and have for a while, that such drug-testing 'policies'  are suspect-  albeit a claim that its in the interests of public safety.  Shite!
I have never faced such a situation in a workplace - ...  and do not think it efficacious for the better running of any enterprise.!


Good point.

I can't think offhand of any situation where I have felt my personal safety to be compromised because of this "mythical" illegal drug problem within the workplace.
Alcohol ..yes I've seen it a few times. Other drugs..no.

Notwithstanding the fact that any threat to workplace safety that I have seen due to alcohol is primarily noticed and dealt with first through the workplace community.
If there were any real problems with drugs in the workplace, I have no doubt that they would also first be dealt with within the workplace community.

Ridiculous, ineffective, insulting drugs tests are a blight on privacy and freedom, and also an insult to the real effectiveness of what a "quiet word" from a trusted colleague might bring.

The message, of course, is to not trust in your pissy little communities.
BB has bigger and better plans for you.


I can certainly sympathise ammad, as the more "responsible" drug users have to try and avoid the snares set to catch the irresponsible, but to pretend that there are not a great many irresponsible users is pretty dubious.
I have had enough experience to consider myself at least as qualified as any person I know of to make that judgement call, so rather than blaming society for protecting itself, blame the dropkicks who obviate that need, by doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Note, also, that the responsible users will be the older users, and unless they give rise to suspicion through their behaviour, then they are unlikely to be targeted, and would need to be a bit unlucky to get randomly tested.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Jul 20th, 2011 at 10:49am

Quote:
Note, also, that the responsible users will be the older users, and unless they give rise to suspicion through their behaviour, then they are unlikely to be targeted, and would need to be a bit unlucky to get randomly tested.


I think in this case you misunderstand the meaning of "random". It refers to the date and timing of the test, not who is tested. Come testing time it's everybody who gets tested - they don't just pick the likely suspects.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 21st, 2011 at 12:50am
'I have had enough experience to consider myself at least as qualified as any person I know of to make that judgement call, so rather than blaming society for protecting itself, blame the dropkicks who obviate that need, by doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.'

Sorry?  was that Mozzaok?

This seems to suggest that  a relatively few people- who act badly, ...justify the onerous situation we ALL  live under.
This seems unbalanced to me.  
Society accepts many more harmful substances than Pot.
And Life Goes On is correct.  

A person may have smoked Pot for say 40 yrs - as a reasonably safe recreational and/or necessary medicinal aid.

This person may have never come to the attention of Police, or neighbours, or road users, because of it.
This person may have worked for the people, this person may have been a Journalist, this person may have been a labourer, ....but none of that  matters-  random is random - and the Law is the law.
No matter how poorly drafted, prejudicial and detrimental it may be.

Too bad for the genuinely good folk I have known - over the years - if they are run afoul of this foul fascist shite.   Big Brother is here - and he DOESN"T like you.!!!!!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Jul 21st, 2011 at 8:20am
Hear Hear Jalane.

What I'm hearing/seeing is that some are recognising themselves as a reference point.
I think that they should get over themselves somewhat and embrace democratic opinion a little more.

Muso obviously thinks himself apt to condone widespread drug testing upon his experience of taking too many cold tablets..."cough cough".

Mozz thinks himself as the "Guru" of hippiedom..and he probably is.
But I think that he is failing to realise that you can't accuse any particular drug to be the problem "per se" when the very same situation will probably exist with or without the drug being present. The dropkick is still the dropkick whether or not he/she takes the drug.  ......?i

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Jul 21st, 2011 at 10:04am

muso wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 8:57am:
The time I accidentally took too many Cold and Flu tablets, I felt totally unsafe.  If that's what morphine (a metabolite of codeine) does to the system, then there should be tests.


Haha. Being a scientist Muso - I'm surprised at your ignorance at the time. I've never taken cold & flu tablets or anything much of a chemical nature - but I do recall those who did and they were heroin addicts who couldn't get a fix. It was the codeine they craved for the "pain".


Quote:
Mozz thinks himself as the "Guru" of hippiedom..and he probably is.

But I think that he is failing to realise that you can't accuse any particular drug to be the problem "per se" when the very same situation will probably exist with or without the drug being present. The dropkick is still the dropkick whether or not he/she takes the drug.  ......?


True, but Mozzaok's point is that the older pot smoker has had so many more years to learn discretion and they know their limitations. They wouldn't take the same risks as someone younger who perhaps can't predict where the drug will take them.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 21st, 2011 at 11:52am

Amadd wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 9:36am:

Quote:
The time I accidentally took too many Cold and Flu tablets, I felt totally unsafe.  If that's what morphine (a metabolite of codeine) does to the system, then there should be tests.


Did you have the common sense to realise that you felt unsafe to perform tasks?
Did you make your colleagues feel unsafe by your presence in this state?
What did you do about it?

Should I trust that you might take a common sense course of action?

I'm very sure that you'd have your wits about you Muso.


Well I was much younger at that time and probably a lot less wise  ;)  I remember feeling that I wanted to die even before taking the tablets, and it didn't register that I was taking the tablets as frequently as I was.  Common sense was not on the horizon.

Nowadays I have a flu vaccination every year. It achieves the required risk reduction.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Jul 21st, 2011 at 7:18pm

Quote:
I've never taken cold & flu tablets or anything much of a chemical nature - but I do recall those who did and they were heroin addicts who couldn't get a fix. It was the codeine they craved for the "pain".


You'd need to take 30, 40, 50+ over the counter Codeine products to just take the edge off hanging out for Heroin. Even then it's unlikely the effect they'd have would be very satisfactory.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 22nd, 2011 at 12:11am
Quote:

I've never taken cold & flu tablets or anything much of a chemical nature - but I do recall those who did and they were heroin addicts who couldn't get a fix. It was the codeine they craved for the "pain".

Quote:

You'd need to take 30, 40, 50+ over the counter Codeine products to just take the edge off hanging out for Heroin. Even then it's unlikely the effect they'd have would be very satisfactory.  



Well truly both Life Goes On   -  and  -- Mantra are correct.

I've known a person trying to inject Digesic 'cos they were hanging - didn't work of course, but they were trying to ease it.  Many yrs ago I might add.  Others would break up Codral cold tabs, and try for the yellow bit in the centre.  Never saw that - anecdotal.  And then of course- others did chemist busts.  :(

So it goes - yeah? :(



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 22nd, 2011 at 12:35am
[quote
True, but Mozzaok's point is that the older pot smoker has had so many more years to learn discretion and they know their limitations. They wouldn't take the same risks as someone younger who perhaps can't predict where the drug will take them.[/quote]


A good point Mantra -... but Life Goes on is the more correct.  Not Mozzaok.
Talking about RANDOM drug testing here.

Because of the LAW -  they essentially are at risk - (every day) ... not because of their risk-taking, but because of random drug tests, punitive authoritarian responses, and  irrational and unreasonable fervor,.. fostered by the WOD.
A 'war' which has been thoroughly discredited , both historically by it's utter failure,  AND by people who ACTUALLY know about what's going on, people any objective pollie WOULD listen to.
But - it seems- such a creature is rarer than Hen's teeth, and all current pollies are too afraid of taking on such a long-term problem with a positive approach, because they are afraid they'll lose votes.

So we all remain mired in the mud of self-interest and hidden agendas.

Why hidden agendas?  
Because- prima facie, all evidence points to its totally NEGATIVE affect on the mental and physical health of society - as a whole.  So WHY CONTINUE???

There's GOTTA be a reason!!
.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Jul 22nd, 2011 at 9:40am

Quote:
True, but Mozzaok's point is that the older pot smoker has had so many more years to learn discretion and they know their limitations. They wouldn't take the same risks as someone younger who perhaps can't predict where the drug will take them.


In regards to pot, I, and probably most others with some experience with it would agree that the limitations are primarily to do with your own perception of how your ability may be limited.
In actual fact, there's very little or no limitation upon ability. It's just a perceived state of mind.
This is generally the polar opposite of how alcohol affects one's perception of ability.

IMO, it's more probable that an experienced user of pot will behave more "normally", albeit, a little more relaxed about things than your average "normal" punter.

A new user will generally be more apprehensive about things like driving and social interactions. ..and/or they might laugh their heads off at this new and unusual feeling.
In time, and with the right attitude, they will usually get to embrace the different perceptions and discover new angles on things that they probably wouldn't have otherwise discovered.
More useful for finding the "Lennon" than the "Lenin" I suppose.

Of course some people might also use it to control predisposed conditions such as a "bad temper" or other inclinations. That's not such a bad thing either IMO, considering what's on offer.

So..it's usually not such a bad altering of mind, ..it's not physically addictive, ..it doesn't cause road accidents (and no doubt saves some from happening), nobody has ever died from it, and it can provide an empathetic view for those who really need it.i



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Jul 22nd, 2011 at 12:17pm

Emma wrote on Jul 22nd, 2011 at 12:35am:
A good point Mantra -... but Life Goes on is the more correct.  Not Mozzaok.
Talking about RANDOM drug testing here.

Because of the LAW -  they essentially are at risk - (every day) ... not because of their risk-taking, but because of random drug tests, punitive authoritarian responses, and  irrational and unreasonable fervor,.. fostered by the WOD.
A 'war' which has been thoroughly discredited , both historically by it's utter failure,  AND by people who ACTUALLY know about what's going on, people any objective pollie WOULD listen to.
But - it seems- such a creature is rarer than Hen's teeth, and all current pollies are too afraid of taking on such a long-term problem with a positive approach, because they are afraid they'll lose votes.

So we all remain mired in the mud of self-interest and hidden agendas.

Why hidden agendas?  
Because- prima facie, all evidence points to its totally NEGATIVE affect on the mental and physical health of society - as a whole.  So WHY CONTINUE???

There's GOTTA be a reason!!
.


I didn't think the law bothered pot smokers much - only went after the dealers. If you can handle it I think pot is OK as a recreational drug, but it doesn't stop there unfortunately. Some people just want to smoke it around the clock.

It obviously has its good and bad points but the law has to remain focussed on the bad because not only would it be too hard to police  in the workplace and on the roads, the workplace would seriously suffer. Can you imagine if our doctors, drivers, tradesmen etc. enjoyed a few puffs during their working day and the law allowed them to do it?


Amadd wrote on Jul 22nd, 2011 at 9:40am:
In regards to pot, I, and probably most others with some experience with it would agree that the limitations are primarily to do with your own perception of how your ability may be limited.
In actual fact, there's very little or no limitation upon ability. It's just a perceived state of mind.
This is generally the polar opposite of how alcohol affects one's perception of ability.


It's hard to tell whether it's a perceived state of mind. Some people who have smoked pot for the first time have ended up in hospital and it's been happening more frequently over the last couple of decades with all this hydro stuff with added chemicals on the streets.

We're all different and have different levels of physical tolerance. Some people can smoke grass and/or drink 10-20 drinks with ease and have very few noticeable affects yet others can have one or two puffs and/or one or two drinks and just can't cope mentally or physically.

I can't see it ever being legalised - although I think it should be for medical reasons. In the meantime pot smokers will just have to be content buying it illegally or growing their own - which is probably the safer, cheaper and more user friendly option.



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 23rd, 2011 at 12:34am
'I didn't think the law bothered pot smokers much - only went after the dealers.' - Mantra

Well you see Mantra - that is not the case.  Where I live, our free local paper has a 'Police Beat' section.
Far and away the most reported matters relate to people being arrested for personal possession of drugs, usually but not always Pot, when stopped in their vehicles in the local area, and these are not dealers. The charges they face usually have nothing to do with commercial activity, .. nevertheless the Police are quite dedicated in taking these people through the legal system, clogging the Courts with relatively minor transgressions.  See  -  it sounds GOOD to many people who have no idea - and vote.   And - I'd have to say - most people fall into that category. :(
YOU might hear about the BIG busts - but you know nothing about the everyday imposts the police place on  users. That is clear. :P

'....but the law has to remain focussed on the bad because not only would it be too hard to police  in the workplace and on the roads, the workplace would seriously suffer. Can you imagine if our doctors, drivers, tradesmen etc. enjoyed a few puffs during their working day and the law allowed...it?..' - Mantra

Sorry Mantra - but this opinion is so typical ! ::) -  I find it frustrating and difficult to understand,  that folk such as yourself - obviously literate and concerned individuals, can buy into such ROT.!

Can you imagine if...???

MY POINT  - no need to  IMAGINE!!???? ....silly silly silly  -  and not logical. SURELY YOU must realise?
It is ALREADY HAPPENING !!!!  Whether OR NOT the Law allows it.  It IS happening - get it?  ....the Law does not prevent it. It IS happening NOW.  THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME and HAS FOR UNCOUNTED DECADES.

People such as yourself fear legalisation for no GOOD reason.!!  The world isn't going to suddenly lapse into dreamy somnambulism- failing economies- poor productivity ...it won't go to 'pot'. -- we are already there.!!

Better to find something more socially cohesive to promote than BAD LAWS.!!!!!



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 23rd, 2011 at 12:55am
I can't see it ever being legalised - although I think it should be for medical reasons. In the meantime pot smokers will just have to be content buying it illegally or growing their own - which is probably the safer, cheaper and more user friendly option. - Mantra.

Sorry again Mantra  -  your position is seemingly 'liberal' -  NOT.......'safer, cheaper'  YES - 'more user friendly option'  YES   --- IF IT was legal to do so. As it isn't ....  the risks remain.... and big-time producers cream all that money out of our economy - into the black market.
I have to say again --   the LOGIC of why Prohibition is RIGHT  -  totally escapes me.  Of course, this is because I have acquired a wider understanding of the issues, over the years, than most straight folk like yourself could ever have.

Being able to grow and use homegrown pot legally, would be a great step in the right direction, providing society with huge savings in reducing ineffective and expensive costs of forcing compliance and punitive prosecution, and increased effectiveness in policing 'real' crime which seems to me much more important.,


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Jul 23rd, 2011 at 11:27am

Emma wrote on Jul 23rd, 2011 at 12:55am:
I can't see it ever being legalised - although I think it should be for medical reasons. In the meantime pot smokers will just have to be content buying it illegally or growing their own - which is probably the safer, cheaper and more user friendly option. - Mantra.

Sorry again Mantra  -  your position is seemingly 'liberal' -  NOT.......'safer, cheaper'  YES - 'more user friendly option'  YES   --- IF IT was legal to do so. As it isn't ....  the risks remain.... and big-time producers cream all that money out of our economy - into the black market.
I have to say again --   the LOGIC of why Prohibition is RIGHT  -  totally escapes me.  Of course, this is because I have acquired a wider understanding of the issues, over the years, than most straight folk like yourself could ever have.

Being able to grow and use homegrown pot legally, would be a great step in the right direction, providing society with huge savings in reducing ineffective and expensive costs of forcing compliance and punitive prosecution, and increased effectiveness in policing 'real' crime which seems to me much more important.,


I meant safer because it's organic and won't have any chemicals added to it.

Perhaps the police only target the younger pot smokers. To be caught with it in their car they would have to be committing a traffic offence or have a car with defects to be pulled over in the first place.

Maybe our doctors, bus drivers, tradesman are all stoned and I just haven't noticed because they haven't smelt.

I'm not sure if I am that straight, although it's nice to know that's the impression I give Jalene.  :)



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 23rd, 2011 at 11:33am

mantra wrote on Jul 23rd, 2011 at 11:27am:
I meant safer because it's organic and won't have any chemicals added to it.


I have some organically grown ricin. Absolutely no chemicals were added to it.

Must be good for you if its organic.  (sorry, my pet subject)

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

With an LD50 of 22ug, It's 100,000 times more toxic than sodium cyanide.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 23rd, 2011 at 9:51pm
'I'm not sure if I am that straight, although it's nice to know that's the impression I give Jalene.' - Mantra.  

I can really relate to ....it's nice....'cos I been there!  But - that was then.!

Now I have no public persona to display - no more 'incognito'.
THAT is one of the underestimated costs of policy -  needing to live a double life.!!
Drat the righteous, holier-than-thou policy-makers.!!!!!!!
>:(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 23rd, 2011 at 10:03pm
RICIN?  Muso...!!!!
I must assume you are kidding.

How about organic veges???

Perhaps MY understanding of organic = good , is different to yours.

I see it as good - for the Earth.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Whether it adds value to the product - or not,  - whether it is better for humans or not - is not the way I view it. Its better for our only habitat - this planet - plundered, pulverised, polluted, - WE need to try to redress the harm we have done. That includes every aspect of how we live.

How people can deny the impact of humans on this sphere is beyond me.  When, for example,  EVER BEFORE in  recorded history, do we have thousands upon thousands of high-flying aircraft spewing out pollution into our thin envelope of survival - the atmosphere,  every single day for decades. ????.
NO impact???  FWits.
>:(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Jul 25th, 2011 at 11:57am

Emma wrote on Jul 23rd, 2011 at 9:51pm:
'I'm not sure if I am that straight, although it's nice to know that's the impression I give Jalene.' - Mantra.  

I can really relate to ....it's nice....'cos I been there!  But - that was then.!

Now I have no public persona to display - no more 'incognito'.
THAT is one of the underestimated costs of policy -  needing to live a double life.!!
Drat the righteous, holier-than-thou policy-makers.!!!!!!!
>:(


I wasn't referring to going incognito - just keeping an open mind (usually) when it comes to the indulgences of others.

This comment might sound straight though - but seriously when pot is smoked daily and long term (even short term in some cases) - brain dysfunction does occur. It mightn't be apparent to the person with the habit, but it's obvious to everyone else.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Jul 25th, 2011 at 12:10pm

Quote:
This comment might sound straight though - but seriously when pot is smoked daily and long term (even short term in some cases) - brain dysfunction does occur.



True, but this oft-used slogan just doesn't justify prohibition.

Name one thing that doesn't cause problems when used frequently for a long term.  You can't do it - as the old saying goes 'everything in moderation'
Continually reverting to the worst case scenario as justification is lazy and fallacious.  Using that same reasoning, I can come up with some silly arguments like:

Ban water becasue someone could drown.
Ban motor vehicles becasue sometimes accidents happen.
Ban sharp objects becasue people could get cut.
Ban all medications because they could be misused.

And so on, and so forth....

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 25th, 2011 at 11:39pm
Hi mr Pipes - good to hear from you - and agree - 100%

Mantra - I was talking about INCOGNITO -  like I said - YOU just do not understand because you are a straight.

As 'a straight' you really cannot understand what I am saying.  No doubt you lead a busy life, happy enough with your circumstances, and blind to much that happens outside your reality. Like the rest of you  who insist this is the way to go.!!  WRONG.
You all just don't have  wide enough experience - your opinions are based on  - propaganda, profession, religion, righteousness, hate, negative experiences, anecdotes , urban myths and simple ignorance.  Any or all of the above.!
So you express on this forum the things that you do.
As is your right. No argument with that.
But to suggest you are-

just keeping an open mind (usually) when it comes to the indulgences of others. - Mantra -
:-?
What you say is clearly not the case. Your own words speak for you.
Like many folk - probably in many cases much more so than you,  the understanding isn't there because you all have one thing in common -  a narrow focus - and mostly a 'closed mind'. [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on Jul 26th, 2011 at 1:28pm

Quote:
A good point Mantra -... but Life Goes on is the more correct.  Not Mozzaok.
-jalane

Yes, you are right, life's appraisal of my comments were correct, I had not really considered the full implication of random testing, having never had to endure such an affront to my rights.
I have worked under the influence of drugs many times, (probably many thousands of times, lol), and never endangered myself, or anybody else with irresponsible, or dangerous actions. I was a chippy, and if I was walking around on top plates, which would never be allowed to happen today anyway, then I would be in a condition where I could do so safely.
I rarely ever smoked before morning tea time anyway, and often not until after work had finished in the afternoon, but if I had ever been drug tested, there would always have been marijuana in my system, but the only way an outsider would know would be by testing, not from my performance or actions.
In that respect, I would have been mightily PO'd to be put in a position to lose my job because society decided that they thought I was incapable of doing what I actually did, and that is used drugs responsibly, and safely. I do miss them a little, even now, they were hellishly fun at times.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 26th, 2011 at 11:00pm
thanks Mozzaok  - someone who Has experience.

I worked in a different situation  ...  and never worked whilst under the influence of Pot. I was too paranoid to do so!!  I had to be INCOGNITO.  Probably if I was not an 'employee' - but an 'independent contractor' it would have been different.

But I can't say that about alcohol. THAT was 'generally' allowed by the workplace culture where I worked.
No-one's lives were directly at risk. But - I just wasn't comfortable with it - altho others in the workplace didn't feel that way.
Not my problem - I'd wait till evening, at home. That was me.
I know - as you say - that many people worked stoned   ---- and many more  PISSED .
So it is....... Sometimes, coming back from lunch with my colleagues - I'd have a mild alco-buzz on.

I have never seen harm in the workplace from smoking -  ... but drinking?? thats another issue..

So Mr Mozzaok - tell me why you don't do it anymore. I'd be very interested  !!!   I mean -  I've gone yrs w/o - but opportunity?  no quibbles on my part. ! ;) - and no longer being in the 'WORKFORCE!!! my restrictions are few.
:) :) :)


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:11am

mantra wrote on Jul 25th, 2011 at 11:57am:
This comment might sound straight though - but seriously when pot is smoked daily and long term (even short term in some cases) - brain dysfunction does occur. It mightn't be apparent to the person with the habit, but it's obvious to everyone else.


That's probably the best comment I've seen on this thread so far.

When it comes down to rejecting medical evidence from scientific studies and rejecting the opinion of anyone who has never smoked pot, you would really have to wonder.

Still, what do I know?  ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:15am

muso wrote on Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:11am:

mantra wrote on Jul 25th, 2011 at 11:57am:
This comment might sound straight though - but seriously when pot is smoked daily and long term (even short term in some cases) - brain dysfunction does occur. It mightn't be apparent to the person with the habit, but it's obvious to everyone else.


That's probably the best comment I've seen on this thread so far.

When it comes down to rejecting medical evidence from scientific studies and rejecting the opinion of anyone who has never smoked pot, you would really have to wonder.

Still, what do I know?  ;)



This 'point' was never in dispute.  Of course long term, heavy use causes problems - just as long term heavy use of anything causes problems.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:22pm
'Still, what do I know? ' - Muso

Precisely-  what do YOU KNOW?.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lepper on Jul 28th, 2011 at 9:18am

mantra wrote on Jul 25th, 2011 at 11:57am:
[quote author=jalane3311@yahoo.c link=1294031311/285#292 date=1311421891]
This comment might sound straight though - but seriously when pot is smoked daily and long term (even short term in some cases) - brain dysfunction does occur. It mightn't be apparent to the person with the habit, but it's obvious to everyone else.


Really? I know many long-term, habitual cannabis users and I would only class 1 or 2 of them as having noticeable 'brain dysfunction'. I know quite a few drinkers who are MUCH more impacted by their long-term use of alcohol.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Jul 28th, 2011 at 10:01am

O))) wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 9:18am:

mantra wrote on Jul 25th, 2011 at 11:57am:
[quote author=jalane3311@yahoo.c link=1294031311/285#292 date=1311421891]
This comment might sound straight though - but seriously when pot is smoked daily and long term (even short term in some cases) - brain dysfunction does occur. It mightn't be apparent to the person with the habit, but it's obvious to everyone else.


Really? I know many long-term, habitual cannabis users and I would only class 1 or 2 of them as having noticeable 'brain dysfunction'. I know quite a few drinkers who are MUCH more impacted by their long-term use of alcohol.



They might still be able to function perfectly normally, but their motivation will have been lessened.  It's good for relaxation, but you can't relax all the time, otherwise nothing gets achieved.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 28th, 2011 at 12:18pm

O))) wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 9:18am:

mantra wrote on Jul 25th, 2011 at 11:57am:
[quote author=jalane3311@yahoo.c link=1294031311/285#292 date=1311421891]
This comment might sound straight though - but seriously when pot is smoked daily and long term (even short term in some cases) - brain dysfunction does occur. It mightn't be apparent to the person with the habit, but it's obvious to everyone else.


Really? I know many long-term, habitual cannabis users and I would only class 1 or 2 of them as having noticeable 'brain dysfunction'. I know quite a few drinkers who are MUCH more impacted by their long-term use of alcohol.


I did not say --- " This comment might sound straight though - ........."  THAT comment was made by Mantra, and backed by Muso.  The way it was posted identifies ME as author.  That is really very annoying! >:(

If you must quote - make sure you get it right.!!!!!! ::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 28th, 2011 at 2:29pm

Emma wrote on Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:22pm:
'Still, what do I know? ' - Muso

Precisely-  what do YOU KNOW?.


That's right.  Partaking of the bhang obviously imparts a wisdom that transcends mere scientific study. I am not worthy.  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Jul 28th, 2011 at 2:33pm

muso wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

Emma wrote on Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:22pm:
'Still, what do I know? ' - Muso

Precisely-  what do YOU KNOW?.


That's right.  Partaking of the bhang obviously imparts a wisdom that transcends mere scientific study. I am not worthy.  ;D



Shamans and what-not believed this to be true.

It does change the way you think, so it's probable that some avenues of thinking would be enhanced and others would be hindered.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 28th, 2011 at 10:40pm

... wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

muso wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

Emma wrote on Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:22pm:
'Still, what do I know? ' - Muso

Precisely-  what do YOU KNOW?.


That's right.  Partaking of the bhang obviously imparts a wisdom that transcends mere scientific study. I am not worthy.  ;D



Shamans and what-not believed this to be true.

It does change the way you think, so it's probable that some avenues of thinking would be enhanced and others would be hindered.



' Partaking of the bhang obviously imparts a wisdom that transcends mere scientific study. ....' - Muso

Listen in Muso.    What you said   .......................     ^  -  your comment  marks a truth, but you don't understand it.  
No fault you -  altho in Law - ignorance is NO EXCUSE.!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lepper on Jul 29th, 2011 at 11:55am

... wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 10:01am:

O))) wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 9:18am:

mantra wrote on Jul 25th, 2011 at 11:57am:
This comment might sound straight though - but seriously when pot is smoked daily and long term (even short term in some cases) - brain dysfunction does occur. It mightn't be apparent to the person with the habit, but it's obvious to everyone else.


Really? I know many long-term, habitual cannabis users and I would only class 1 or 2 of them as having noticeable 'brain dysfunction'. I know quite a few drinkers who are MUCH more impacted by their long-term use of alcohol.



They might still be able to function perfectly normally, but their motivation will have been lessened.  It's good for relaxation, but you can't relax all the time, otherwise nothing gets achieved.


Are we talking brain dysfunction or being unmotivated? Losing motivation definitely becomes less of an issue with daily, long-term use as stated in the original post. I know plenty of people who smoke daily, have for years, and manage to run a business, hold down jobs, get physical exercise, remain fit, play sport, create music/art etc etc...It all is highly dependent on the person. Especially if we are talking long-term/daily use. Once tolerance builds it is much easier to remain motivated.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Jul 29th, 2011 at 11:58am

O))) wrote on Jul 29th, 2011 at 11:55am:

... wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 10:01am:

O))) wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 9:18am:

mantra wrote on Jul 25th, 2011 at 11:57am:
This comment might sound straight though - but seriously when pot is smoked daily and long term (even short term in some cases) - brain dysfunction does occur. It mightn't be apparent to the person with the habit, but it's obvious to everyone else.


Really? I know many long-term, habitual cannabis users and I would only class 1 or 2 of them as having noticeable 'brain dysfunction'. I know quite a few drinkers who are MUCH more impacted by their long-term use of alcohol.



They might still be able to function perfectly normally, but their motivation will have been lessened.  It's good for relaxation, but you can't relax all the time, otherwise nothing gets achieved.


Are we talking brain dysfunction or being unmotivated? Losing motivation definitely becomes less of an issue with daily, long-term use as stated in the original post. I know plenty of people who smoke daily, have for years, and manage to run a business, hold down jobs, get physical exercise, remain fit, play sport, create music/art etc etc...It all is highly dependent on the person. Especially if we are talking long-term/daily use. Once tolerance builds it is much easier to remain motivated.



I don't deny that - once routine has been established, you can do it almost indefintely.  However, motivation to step outside of the comfort zone is certainly lessened.  I believe long term regular use will have this effect on everyone, but for arguments sake, lets just say 99% of people.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lepper on Jul 29th, 2011 at 1:43pm

... wrote on Jul 29th, 2011 at 11:58am:

O))) wrote on Jul 29th, 2011 at 11:55am:

... wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 10:01am:

O))) wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 9:18am:

mantra wrote on Jul 25th, 2011 at 11:57am:
This comment might sound straight though - but seriously when pot is smoked daily and long term (even short term in some cases) - brain dysfunction does occur. It mightn't be apparent to the person with the habit, but it's obvious to everyone else.


Really? I know many long-term, habitual cannabis users and I would only class 1 or 2 of them as having noticeable 'brain dysfunction'. I know quite a few drinkers who are MUCH more impacted by their long-term use of alcohol.



They might still be able to function perfectly normally, but their motivation will have been lessened.  It's good for relaxation, but you can't relax all the time, otherwise nothing gets achieved.


Are we talking brain dysfunction or being unmotivated? Losing motivation definitely becomes less of an issue with daily, long-term use as stated in the original post. I know plenty of people who smoke daily, have for years, and manage to run a business, hold down jobs, get physical exercise, remain fit, play sport, create music/art etc etc...It all is highly dependent on the person. Especially if we are talking long-term/daily use. Once tolerance builds it is much easier to remain motivated.


However, motivation to step outside of the comfort zone is certainly lessened.  I believe long term regular use will have this effect on everyone, but for arguments sake, lets just say 99% of people.


I honestly have not noticed an unwillingness to try new things amongst my stoner friends/acquaintances (assuming this is what you meant by comfort zone). If anything, I am less outgoing than most of them and I only smoke occasionally. This all traces back to individual behaviour. I can't help but feel saying 99%/everyone will behave as you said after long-term use is a rather large assumption.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 29th, 2011 at 8:15pm

Emma wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 10:40pm:

... wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

muso wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

Emma wrote on Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:22pm:
'Still, what do I know? ' - Muso

Precisely-  what do YOU KNOW?.


That's right.  Partaking of the bhang obviously imparts a wisdom that transcends mere scientific study. I am not worthy.  ;D



Shamans and what-not believed this to be true.

It does change the way you think, so it's probable that some avenues of thinking would be enhanced and others would be hindered.



' Partaking of the bhang obviously imparts a wisdom that transcends mere scientific study. ....' - Muso

Listen in Muso.    What you said   .......................     ^  -  your comment  marks a truth, but you don't understand it.  
No fault you -  altho in Law - ignorance is NO EXCUSE.!


Maybe they should make it compulsory to give it to school students to make them wise? - You reckon? It would save a whole lot of book work.  :P

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 29th, 2011 at 11:17pm
Sigh!! ::) Muso - why say such preposterous things.??
 
I think children should remain drug and alcohol-free as long as possible.  But that time in our society is virtually in  months!! - when analgesics  (harmful ones) like paracetamol, are advertised to parents as the 'safe' solution. When parents give their infants beer to 'help' them sleep - why stir up rubbish about 'what if'? -  when there is plenty to address in 'what's  now'.??

Lepper, Mr Pipes??  your commonsense approaches to this subject - although differing in some issues, are nevertheless helpful.  Not that I expect Muso to give it away. Seems if it's not in a scientific study - with lots of yummy statistics, meaningless as they may be, and backed by whoever for whatever purposes, it isn't worth serious consideration. Such is the product of a narrow focus and an essentially closed mind.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 30th, 2011 at 8:26am

Emma wrote on Jul 29th, 2011 at 11:17pm:
I think children should remain drug and alcohol-free as long as possible.  But that time in our society is virtually in  months!! - when analgesics  (harmful ones) like paracetamol, are advertised to parents as the 'safe' solution.


- but to deprive them of the "weed of life" though- this elixir of wisdom that provides people with a valuable insight into life that mere non-inhalers like me cannot dream of - isn't that tantamount to child-abuse?  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Jul 30th, 2011 at 9:09am

Emma wrote on Jul 26th, 2011 at 11:00pm:
thanks Mozzaok  - someone who Has experience.

I worked in a different situation  ...  and never worked whilst under the influence of Pot. I was too paranoid to do so!!  I had to be INCOGNITO.  Probably if I was not an 'employee' - but an 'independent contractor' it would have been different.
But I can't say that about alcohol. THAT was 'generally' allowed by the workplace culture where I worked.
No-one's lives were directly at risk. But - I just wasn't comfortable with it - altho others in the workplace didn't feel that way.
Not my problem - I'd wait till evening, at home. That was me.
I know - as you say - that many people worked stoned   ---- and many more  PISSED .
So it is....... Sometimes, coming back from lunch with my colleagues - I'd have a mild alco-buzz on.

I have never seen harm in the workplace from smoking -  ... but drinking?? thats another issue..


If you've never worked under the influence of pot - why do you appear to be condoning those who do? You obviously had some reservations about how you would perform?

I'm sure Mozzaok and Muso have been around the block a few times in their youth. I did both at work, but only ever smoked pot once one lunchtime and regretted it. I was 19 and had some urgent documents to type up for a director (no spell check programs back then) and could not get past the first paragraph much to my horror.

On the other hand - after lunches involving alcohol with colleagues - it's assumed that your work performance will be a little impaired and not as much is expected of you. Remember alcohol is legal and people can still perform their duties to a certain extent if they've been fairly moderate.


Quote:
So Mr Mozzaok - tell me why you don't do it anymore. I'd be very interested  !!!   I mean -  I've gone yrs w/o - but opportunity?  no quibbles on my part. ! ;) - and no longer being in the 'WORKFORCE!!! my restrictions are few.
:) :) :)


It sounds like you're using your retirement as an excuse to get stoned around the clock Jalene and you have the freedom to do so, but do you feel good about it? Are you still as physically and mentally active as you once were or have you become a procrastinator? Pot tends to restrict your abilities.

I can't speak on behalf of Mozzaok or Muso - but I assume age and experience has determined their use of illegal drugs. I doubt they would publicly declare any of their habits even if there was only a little residue remaining today.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 30th, 2011 at 11:32am

mantra wrote on Jul 30th, 2011 at 9:09am:
I can't speak on behalf of Mozzaok or Muso - but I assume age and experience has determined their use of illegal drugs. I doubt they would publicly declare any of their habits even if there was only a little residue remaining today.


I never tried illegal drugs, but I did drink when I was young (probably too much at times). I also remember a time when people would drink at lunchtime.  Maybe it still happens, but not, as far as I'm aware in major industry.  I work for hazardous industry and I'm also on call by the Queensland government to respond to chemical spills. Consequently, I just don't drink alcohol. It's not worth the risk for me.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Jul 30th, 2011 at 2:08pm
Sorry Muso. I thought you were hinting that you had tried illegal drugs when you were younger - my error. It's the winks that did it.

Lunchtime drinks are a thing of the past, but 20 years ago - it was a habit a few workplaces places indulged in.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Jul 30th, 2011 at 2:45pm
It was only 6 years ago that the liquid lunch ended for us in IT at a lot of corporate employers.

Previously it went as far as being perfectly acceptable to use the corporate card to pick up the tab for boozy team lunches - or stocking up the bar for friday afternoon drinks.

It was senior management who kicked up the biggest stink about the no booze rule. As for random testing for booze and drugs:  they went absolutely ballistic.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 30th, 2011 at 10:22pm
'....why do you appear to be condoning those who do? You obviously had some reservations about how you would perform?  - Mantra

Really?  I do not recall 'condoning' working 'under the influence - of Pot, Or alcohol'.
I was saying it happens.!!.

Of course this was over ten yrs ago.  Who knows now - BUT  I DOUBT its any different.  Do you honestly believe that every working person is straight, at all times???.
More fool you. Same for Muso - who's reply isn't worth the effort, other than this. :)

As to my claim to never have worked under the influence -  well that was a bit of a generalisation.  Having worked in many different areas of employment, in different eras, and for different employers,  I'll modify my statement.  When in positions of legal authority - I never worked under the influence - except for those boozey-buzz afternoons I mentioned already, which were more than CONDONED by the senior officers.  That way, they could get pissed as a fart, and no-one said Boo.!!.

My concern - in those positions - was not my ability, nor performance,  .which were of a high standard  ;D ('scuse the pun).. but with being recognised as a pot smoker.  In some circles that was also OK,  but not in the eyes of the higher echelon  hypocrits, - or the public.
I performed my duties to the best of my ability - regardless of the circumstances in which I found myself.
In fact -  the people of Australia -  have benefited from my application to my principles.  :)

Also - I found study was so much more productive, and results well received , when essays eg were to be handed in for assessment.  I received 'Distinctions' in all bar one of my subjects, - the last, when I got a credit.
By then - I had moved on.
I perform very well - but not under the influence of alcohol.!@!.  Thats the truth.!!!!!
Believe it or not.!!! :) :P :P






Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Jul 31st, 2011 at 7:08am

Emma wrote on Jul 30th, 2011 at 10:22pm:
'....why do you appear to be condoning those who do? You obviously had some reservations about how you would perform?  - Mantra

Really?  I do not recall 'condoning' working 'under the influence - of Pot, Or alcohol'.
I was saying it happens.!!.

Of course this was over ten yrs ago.  Who knows now - BUT  I DOUBT its any different.  Do you honestly believe that every working person is straight, at all times???.
More fool you. Same for Muso - who's reply isn't worth the effort, other than this. :)

As to my claim to never have worked under the influence -  well that was a bit of a generalisation.  Having worked in many different areas of employment, in different eras, and for different employers,  I'll modify my statement.  When in positions of legal authority - I never worked under the influence - except for those boozey-buzz afternoons I mentioned already, which were more than CONDONED by the senior officers.  That way, they could get pissed as a fart, and no-one said Boo.!!.

My concern - in those positions - was not my ability, nor performance,  .which were of a high standard  ;D ('scuse the pun).. but with being recognised as a pot smoker.  In some circles that was also OK,  but not in the eyes of the higher echelon  hypocrits, - or the public.
I performed my duties to the best of my ability - regardless of the circumstances in which I found myself.
In fact -  the people of Australia -  have benefited from my application to my principles.  :)


Pot is fine for recreational use. It didn't agree with me, although I indulged a little when I was young mainly because of peer pressure. The people who condone those who smoke pot at every available opportunity aren't necessarily hypocrites but probably find pot heads offensive - the way we find alcoholics offensive. Society doesn't have a great deal of tolerance for addicts as most of them appear to be poor achievers through their own self indulgence, not to mention incredibly annoying at times. The smell of bong smoke isn't attractive either.


Quote:
Also - I found study was so much more productive, and results well received , when essays eg were to be handed in for assessment.  I received 'Distinctions' in all bar one of my subjects, - the last, when I got a credit.
By then - I had moved on.
I perform very well - but not under the influence of alcohol.!@!.  Thats the truth.!!!!!
Believe it or not.!!! :) :P :P


I assume you're referring to smoking pot while you were studying. You appear to be an exception to have done so well with your brain so tranquilised and I say that because pot isn't reknowned for increasing clarity of mind. Had you thought about how exceptionally bright you might be if you had nothing impairing your mind?

I am not trying to offend you - just point out the negatives and positives.







Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 31st, 2011 at 11:40am

mantra wrote on Jul 31st, 2011 at 7:08am:
I assume you're referring to smoking pot while you were studying. You appear to be an exception to have done so well with your brain so tranquilised and I say that because pot isn't reknowned for increasing clarity of mind. Had you thought about how exceptionally bright you might be if you had nothing impairing your mind?


Nothing to do with pot, but it puts me in mind of a brilliant jazz saxophonist I once knew. That guy could put away some drink. During one performance, he slumped in the middle of a band performance and couldn't stand up because he was literally legless. When it came for his solo, he played it absolutely note-perfect from the floor, with his eyes firmly shut.   ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 31st, 2011 at 7:32pm
' Had you thought about how exceptionally bright you might be if you had nothing impairing your mind?

I am not trying to offend you - just point out the negatives and positives'.
- Mantra

No offense taken.  

Of course I have considered the positives and negatives.
Now in my fiftyith decade, I have considered it often.  After nearly 40 yrs of a relationship with this pyschotropic drug I don't resent it in any way.  I resent the legal policy that has made this relationship problematic. :)


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Jul 31st, 2011 at 7:47pm

Quote:
Of course I have considered the positives and negatives.
Now in my fiftyith decade, I have considered it often.


That would make you over 490 yrs. of age wouldn't it?  :o
I gotta get me some of that thar stuff!



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Jul 31st, 2011 at 8:15pm
HeeeHeee  !!!!

Thought there wAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH WHAT i WROTE.  
;D :D :D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by family on Aug 1st, 2011 at 1:12am

Man fined for pot: Grew marijuana in two pots for his own use, court told

29 Jul, 2011 04:00 AM


A MILDURA man who inadvertently drew police to his attention has been fined for growing two cannabis plants in the rear yard of his Seventh Street unit.
The Mildura Magistrates’ Court was this week told that police were called to a Seventh Street residence for an unrelated matter in April this year when noise coming from an adjoining property attracted their attention.

Police prosecutor Senior-Constable Damon Pica told the court that when police peered over the fence they saw the two marijuana plants growing in pots in the back yard.

Sen-Constable Pica said the unit’s resident Derek John Clarke, 37, made full admissions when questioned by police saying that he grew the plants “to save some money”.

Clarke’s defence counsel Bert Hilton-Wood said his client had moved into emergency accommodation after his house was affected by flooding early this year and the plants were for his own personal use.


For more of this story, purchase your copy of Friday's Sunraysia Daily 29/7/2011.

Sorry..no link posible before 10 posts. :-[

my comment:he paid a fine $200 per plant.
If it would be tax instead, i'll agree.
Because tax means benefit for all.i


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 1st, 2011 at 2:28am
'my comment:
he paid a fine $200 per plant.
If it would be tax instead, i'll agree.
Because tax means benefit for all.'
- Family


Quite agree, family.

Pretty steep fine, yeah?
So... see  Mantra?,   that goes on every Court sitting day in pretty well every Court you could name - 'cept maybe SA and ACT.  Unless that's changed - don't live there, and so don't hear about it.!!

What an absolute travesty.!! And so much more - that harms our society.  But I've said it before - so won't say it again. :(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 1st, 2011 at 7:54am
I don't disagree too much with the $200/plant fine.
Yes it's a bit steep for what it is, but on the other hand I think it sends a fair enough message that you are able to grow it and use it for yourself (and maybe a few friends), but don't go flaunting it, and don't grow for profit.
If you want to grow a couple of plants for personal use, it's very easily done without bringing attention to yourself IMO.

Of course practically everybody who has used the drug knows that it's nowhere near the big evil that it's touted to be.
In many aspects, it would go a long way towards pointing people in the direction to do their individual bit to help rid the world of the evils that we currently accept as being "The Norm".

..because reality is an illusion due to a lack of marijuana  ;Di









Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by family on Aug 1st, 2011 at 7:19pm
@Amadd : "I don't disagree too much with the $200/plant fine."

me neither, it's nod about the amount of charge.
It is the kind of charge...what i mean.
;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 1st, 2011 at 8:20pm
'............ but on the other hand I think it sends a fair enough message that you are able to grow it and use it for yourself (and maybe a few friends), but don't go flaunting it, and don't grow for profit.
If you want to grow a couple of plants for personal use, it's very easily done without bringing attention to yourself IMO'
. - Amadd


But Amadd, in the example the police were next door -  and some noise made them look over the fence.
And ahha  - 2 whole plants in pots.!!
So you think its acceptable and the grower's fault he  was caught.  

Can't even make a bit of noise in your own back yard - without risk of being arrested -/fined - for 2 plants. !!! Good grief.... Now that isn't what I call crime-fighting. So people have to hide  - in their own homes?? for fear of legal retribution?

Doesn't that sound a mite fascist to you??? :-?



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 7:31am

Quote:
Doesn't that sound a mite fascist to you???  :-?


Yes, depending on the circumstances.
If, for example, the plants were being grown around kids, then I'd say that they deserve a fine.
However, if the police were snooping for no reason other than to invade people's privacy, then I think that there should be no charges as they had no right to be leering into private property without permission or a warrant.
"Two plants" obviously means that they are only being grown for personal use. It'd be nice to think that there are still a lot of cops out there that would turn a blind eye.




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 8:54am

Cybergenesis wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:28pm:
Its amazing the amount of ignorance in this thread.

* Marijuana does not cause psychosis in people that will not otherwise develop psychosis. Marijuana does not increase the incidence of schizophrenia.

* There is no reliable evidence showing Marijuana is causative of the development of any form of mental illness.
...............




Cybergenesis wrote on Jul 26th, 2011 at 1:52pm:
I'm on disability pension for psyche disorder (severe anxiety, I have phobic so can't work in place with people)...


I rest my case.  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lepper on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 9:33am
He's right though.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 10:16am

O))) wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 9:33am:
He's right though.



I agree. It's quite possible that he is on a disability pension for severe anxiety as a result of his drug habits.  On the other hand he could be just a troll.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 10:20am

muso wrote on Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:11am:

mantra wrote on Jul 25th, 2011 at 11:57am:
This comment might sound straight though - but seriously when pot is smoked daily and long term (even short term in some cases) - brain dysfunction does occur. It mightn't be apparent to the person with the habit, but it's obvious to everyone else.


That's probably the best comment I've seen on this thread so far.

When it comes down to rejecting medical evidence from scientific studies and rejecting the opinion of anyone who has never smoked pot, you would really have to wonder.

Still, what do I know?  ;)



I take issue with a couple of points, the first being that drug use is apparent to everyone else, that most certainly does not need to be the case, and unless people expect all who indulge in drug use to appear like stereotypical stoners from the movies, they would be very mistaken.
Lawyers, Doctor's Nurses, etc. can indulge, and because people do not stereotype them as potential users, they are never suspected, unless they display "strong" signs of intoxication, and if they do, then they are over indulging, and behaving irresponsibly, which for most, would be out of character.
As far as Brain Dysfunction goes, I guess it comes down to what parameters are set, I mean if you are smoking pot and not seeing your brain react differently, then it is dud dope. ;D
I think that point is important, because the assumption that different means worse, flies in the face of all drug therapy, and as we have already said, for many drug users, their patterns of use do fall into a category that strongly resembles self medication, and they actually function at a better level when doing so.

I do not want to be seen as trying to promote the use of illegal drugs, but I am firmly convinced that the lack of understanding about drugs and their effects is also very damaging, with the prohibition of drugs being a case where I believe the negatives outweigh any positive outcomes by a huge margin.

I always have, and always will believe that a far more medical approach needs to be taken, and some forms of drug use need to be legitimised so as to satisfy the basic human desire which will always be there, while steering people towards a way they can meet their desires, while producing the minimum harm to themselves, and society.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 10:21am

Amadd wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 7:31am:

Quote:
Doesn't that sound a mite fascist to you???  :-?


Yes, depending on the circumstances.
If, for example, the plants were being grown around kids, then I'd say that they deserve a fine.
However, if the police were snooping for no reason other than to invade people's privacy, then I think that there should be no charges as they had no right to be leering into private property without permission or a warrant.
"Two plants" obviously means that they are only being grown for personal use. It'd be nice to think that there are still a lot of cops out there that would turn a blind eye.



To kids, they are just another plant - nothing special about it, no reason for the kids to see it as anything more.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lepper on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 2:19pm

muso wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 10:16am:

O))) wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 9:33am:
He's right though.



I agree. It's quite possible that he is on a disability pension for severe anxiety as a result of his drug habits.  On the other hand he could be just a troll.


I think you misunderstood me.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 2:26pm

O))) wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 2:19pm:

muso wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 10:16am:

O))) wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 9:33am:
He's right though.



I agree. It's quite possible that he is on a disability pension for severe anxiety as a result of his drug habits.  On the other hand he could be just a troll.


I think you misunderstood me.


Ah. You don't think he's a troll.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 4:25pm

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 10:20am:
I take issue with a couple of points, the first being that drug use is apparent to everyone else, that most certainly does not need to be the case, and unless people expect all who indulge in drug use to appear like stereotypical stoners from the movies, they would be very mistaken.
Lawyers, Doctor's Nurses, etc. can indulge, and because people do not stereotype them as potential users, they are never suspected, unless they display "strong" signs of intoxication, and if they do, then they are over indulging, and behaving irresponsibly, which for most, would be out of character.
As far as Brain Dysfunction goes, I guess it comes down to what parameters are set, I mean if you are smoking pot and not seeing your brain react differently, then it is dud dope. ;D
I think that point is important, because the assumption that different means worse, flies in the face of all drug therapy, and as we have already said, for many drug users, their patterns of use do fall into a category that strongly resembles self medication, and they actually function at a better level when doing so.

I do not want to be seen as trying to promote the use of illegal drugs, but I am firmly convinced that the lack of understanding about drugs and their effects is also very damaging, with the prohibition of drugs being a case where I believe the negatives outweigh any positive outcomes by a huge margin.

I always have, and always will believe that a far more medical approach needs to be taken, and some forms of drug use need to be legitimised so as to satisfy the basic human desire which will always be there, while steering people towards a way they can meet their desires, while producing the minimum harm to themselves, and society.


Mozzaok - if you aren't under the influence of anything of course you notice if someone else is.

There is no way that you can smoke grass in a subtle way and not have some people notice it. If you haven't noticed a change in their speech - you can certainly notice a change in their eyes.

If you're oblivious to the above - then there's the smell on their body and clothing.

As far as someone not noticing the affect of grass on themselves - that's because they've built up an immunity and need more - and stronger stuff to achieve the desired affect.

Unless I was dying I would notice if a doctor or nurse was stoned - but the thought of these people being irresponsible enough to smoke while doing precision work gives impetus to the reason why it should never be made legal. I'm not condoning alcohol either.

There is only a small fine for growing one or two plants and that should keep the recreational users happy.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 4:30pm

Quote:
There is no way that you can smoke grass in a subtle way and not have some people notice it. If you haven't noticed a change in their speech - you can certainly notice a change in their eyes.



This might be true of teenaged, novice smokers, but doesn't apply to most.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 8:18pm

Quote:
To kids, they are just another plant - nothing special about it, no reason for the kids to see it as anything more.


True.
It might imply that they are also using around kids, but not neccessarily.


Quote:
This might be true of teenaged, novice smokers, but doesn't apply to most.


True again. A little bit of visine and nobody would have the faintest idea in the case of most experienced users.



As far a s brain damage is concerned, I couldn't see it being any worse than alcohol, or age itself.
I know a few very heavy users who have consistenly kicked everyone's ass at Tony Delroy's quiz for the past 20+ years, and they continue to do so.
Over that length of time I've seen no change in their capabilities, however, they do seem to be far more introspective and interesting than most.





Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 12:12am
Mantra,  -- your posts  make it clearer and clearer that you just simply dislike - a lot - people who smoke pot.
Your inclusive statements are offensive.
Can't imagine who YOU hang with, if these are your opinions.  They'd have to be pretty perfect, along your chosen lines, .....and I'm sure you DO know like-minded people,  BUT  most of them aren't on this topic. 'cept for Muso, of course. ::) :P
Like anyone you have a right to your views,  ..... but don't expect others, with different experience , to agree.

Because??? - your preferred view is so stereo-typical, as another poster remarked, that its obvious your knowledge is limited.

Mozzaok ,on the other hand, expresses very well the dilemma this policy causes to nearly everyone who has come in contact with the reality of the matter.

A sad state of affairs.   :(   And what really gets up my nose  (UHOH...ANOTHER PUN) - is the harm it causes - being so sanctimoniously and blithely treated as having no importance, by deadheads like you and Muso. You don't  understand the import of what you are saying.  :P :P

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 4:06am

Emma wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 12:12am:
Mantra,  -- your posts  make it clearer and clearer that you just simply dislike - a lot - people who smoke pot.
Your inclusive statements are offensive.
Can't imagine who YOU hang with, if these are your opinions.  They'd have to be pretty perfect, along your chosen lines, .....and I'm sure you DO know like-minded people,  BUT  most of them aren't on this topic. 'cept for Muso, of course. ::) :P
Like anyone you have a right to your views,  ..... but don't expect others, with different experience , to agree.

Because??? - your preferred view is so stereo-typical, as another poster remarked, that its obvious your knowledge is limited.

Mozzaok ,on the other hand, expresses very well the dilemma this policy causes to nearly everyone who has come in contact with the reality of the matter.

A sad state of affairs.   :(   And what really gets up my nose  (UHOH...ANOTHER PUN) - is the harm it causes - being so sanctimoniously and blithely treated as having no importance, by deadheads like you and Muso. You don't  understand the import of what you are saying.  :P :P


It seems you're the one who's jumping to all sorts of assumptions about people who argue against the legalisation of pot.

I have said I don't have a problem with recreational users, but you can't expect everyone to agree with you. I know that plenty of people smoke it around the clock and I'm just pointing out that they would be healthier if they didn't - and so would the rest of us. I don't want any services I employ to be performed by someone who is impaired.

How many people want healthcare workers, taxi and bus drivers, builders etc. to be stoned while working? Not too many of us.

If as others have pointed out "professional" smokers are not discernible to the rest of us - that is a worry - although I think that's just a defensive statement. We know when someone is drunk and they're usually relieved of their duties if it becomes a habit, yet your posts indicate that we're supposed to tolerate those who are affected by cannabis - if we don't, then according to you we're deadheads.

That's the problem with addicts who don't give their brain enough time to recuperate after smoking before they're onto their next bong - their views become so clouded they can't see anyone else's point of view.

You are the one who is coming across as being self righteous Jalene.




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 7:09am

Amadd wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 8:18pm:
As far a s brain damage is concerned, I couldn't see it being any worse than alcohol, or age itself.


By the same logic:

As far as jumping off a cliff is concerned, I can't see it any worse than jumping in front of a bus.

Nobody is arguing that alcohol is harmless here. In fact, I think most of us agree that it's harmful.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 8:03am
Mantra, I think it's your attitude that get's up the nose (no pun..haha) of those experienced with using marijuana.

So many of your statements make it so very blatantly obvious that you have not experienced, and therefore have no real idea of what you are talking about.
You are speaking in non-sequitor terms in reference to the subject.

Let's say for example that smoking is harmful.
So..smoking what is harmful?
Is smoking anything harmful? And to what extent?

You don't need to smoke dope. It can be eaten or vapourisd as a far more healthy method of ingestation.
There are plenty of available methods to ingest dope which would practically negate any personal health risk. Does that make it better for you?

Probably not, because you have also alluded to some fanciful fact that you can become a "Marijuana addict". No need for me to quote you there, because you know that you said it.

That's absolute bs. It's not true at all. There is no such thing as a marijuana addict...debate me on that if you wish, I'll find all of the facts for what I know is true.


The next point that you raise is concerning service workers.

Who would want a stoned builder building?
Who would want a stoned taxi driver driving?
Who would want a stoned surgeon operating on them?

It all depends upon how well they are able to perform their task.
And here's where you are assimilating alcohol with marijuana. They are very different influences indeed.

It's likely that a person influenced by marijuana will be more conscionable than a person that has had even only one beer.
In fact, it's more likely that a person influenced by marijuana will be far more conscionable than that of their ordinary state.

As I've stated before: A person under the influence of marijuana will usually underestimate their capabilities rather than overestimate them in respect to their ordinary capabilities.

That is a fact.





Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 8:29am

muso wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 7:09am:

Amadd wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 8:18pm:
As far a s brain damage is concerned, I couldn't see it being any worse than alcohol, or age itself.


By the same logic:

As far as jumping off a cliff is concerned, I can't see it any worse than jumping in front of a bus.

Nobody is arguing that alcohol is harmless here. In fact, I think most of us agree that it's harmful.



Yeah right  ::)

I find it hard to believe that you are actually so bereft of logic.


Who is talking about jumping in front of buses here?  :o

Yes we all agree that alcohol is harmful. Maybe even more harmful than marijuana? Maybe ..yess?
And we all have eyes, so we can see that alcohol is not only legal and accepted, it's also condoned and advertised.

Sorry mate, haven't seen many ads for jumping in front of buses yet.
Let me know when you see some OK?

Why am I listening to this non-sequitor crap?






Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 9:13am

Amadd wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 8:03am:
Let's say for example that smoking is harmful.
So..smoking what is harmful?
Is smoking anything harmful? And to what extent?


At least you're asking the right questions. It all comes down to the degree of risk. Let's face it, we're not too worried about the occasional light user. The same thing applies to alcohol.

It doesn't matter whether a drug is legal or illegal from the point of view of impairment, and that's where we should be looking, because (I hope) the reason for all the testing is not because we want to be "little Hitlers", but because all we want to do is to reduce accidents.  

Sleeping pills and tranquillisers may be perfectly legally prescribed, but if it comes to the crunch, they can be even worse when it comes to impairment. In fact if you've been awake for 21 hours or more, it can produce an equivalent impairment to a BAC of 0.05, so you don't even have to take drugs to be impaired.

It all comes down to the individual's judgement on how to use them. The problem, as I've said before is the heavy long-term user.  





Quote:
It's likely that a person influenced by marijuana will be more conscionable than a person that has had even only one beer.
In fact, it's more likely that a person influenced by marijuana will be far more conscionable than that of their ordinary state.

As I've stated before: A person under the influence of marijuana will usually underestimate their capabilities rather than overestimate them in respect to their ordinary capabilities.

That is a fact.


Again, you're looking at the short term acute effects only. The long term effects of heavy drug use can impair judgement and it doesn't even have to be in the system at the time - we're talking about chronic effects of longterm use here, and that has to include  mood swings associated with withdrawal.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 9:52am
Well thankyou muso, I am at last asking the right questions.

Now how about you start using the correct logic and stop relating jumping off cliffs and in front of buses with the question at hand?

Sorry mate, no respect at all for your logic there at all, it's totally ridiculous.



Quote:
It doesn't matter whether a drug is legal or illegal from the point of view of impairment, and that's where we should be looking, because (I hope) the reason for all the testing is not because we want to be "little Hitlers", but because all we want to do is to reduce accidents.


Of course it matters in regards to short term impairment, that's where most of the accidents happen. That's where the largest degree of risk exists.
..just like riding a bike..don't ya know?




Quote:
It all comes down to the individual's judgement on how to use them


Oh I see, now it's thrown back onto the user to use personal judgement, as God initially intended.
How 'bout you stop trying to be God and start using God's logic?



Quote:
It all comes down to the degree of risk. Let's face it, we're not too worried about the occasional light user. The same thing applies to alcohol.


Who tha fcku is we?
When did you become WE?
Have we recently been knighted?

Sorry mate, I live in a democracy that I shall want to die or kill for. Otherwise, I will take the money and run and stuff you all to the buggery that you deserve.

Democratic opinion is plainly obvious on this subject. Those who have experienced have a far more knowledgable opinion than those who haven't experienced.

Go have a bong and talk to me when you have half a clue.i





Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:01am

Amadd wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 8:03am:
Mantra, I think it's your attitude that get's up the nose (no pun..haha) of those experienced with using marijuana.

So many of your statements make it so very blatantly obvious that you have not experienced, and therefore have no real idea of what you are talking about.
You are speaking in non-sequitor terms in reference to the subject.

Let's say for example that smoking is harmful.
So..smoking what is harmful?
Is smoking anything harmful? And to what extent?

You don't need to smoke dope. It can be eaten or vapourisd as a far more healthy method of ingestation.
There are plenty of available methods to ingest dope which would practically negate any personal health risk. Does that make it better for you?


Amadd - I am not as ignorant as you're assuming. It has nothing to do with the way cannabis is taken. Marijuana is beneficial to some who are terminally ill and I'm sure most people wouldn't have a problem with it being prescribed to ease suffering.


Quote:
Probably not, because you have also alluded to some fanciful fact that you can become a "Marijuana addict". No need for me to quote you there, because you know that you said it.

That's absolute bs. It's not true at all. There is no such thing as a marijuana addict...debate me on that if you wish, I'll find all of the facts for what I know is true.


Addict is a strong word - but the words "habitual user" can be substituted if you like. It all comes down to the same meaning in the end. I have known people who've needed to go into rehab for their "habit" - so it would depend on the individual as to whether they became "addicted".


Quote:
The next point that you raise is concerning service workers.

Who would want a stoned builder building?
Who would want a stoned taxi driver driving?
Who would want a stoned surgeon operating on them?

It all depends upon how well they are able to perform their task.


No matter how well it is assumed they do their task - if you were honest you would admit they do their task better when they're straight.

If you're a brickies' labourer and had a repetitive and thoughtless job - perhaps you could manage for a while, but even a seasoned user, although not admitting it, would prefer their service providers to be straight with their minds clear.

If habitual users aren't addicted, why do they have the need to indulge themselves so frequently?


Quote:
And here's where you are assimilating alcohol with marijuana. They are very different influences indeed.

It's likely that a person influenced by marijuana will be more conscionable than a person that has had even only one beer.
In fact, it's more likely that a person influenced by marijuana will be far more conscionable than that of their ordinary state.

As I've stated before: A person under the influence of marijuana will usually underestimate their capabilities rather than overestimate them in respect to their ordinary capabilities.

That is a fact.


Yes - and underestimating your abilities is just as bad as overestimating them. Would you want a surgeon performing an intricate and delicate operation on you and wondering to himself which vein should he clamp next - or should he make an incision here or over there?

Your above statement alone Amadd indicates that cannabis does not have a positive influence on your brain. Long term users usually suffer from depression and paranoia - symptoms that could be avoided or lessened if they modified their "habit".

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:12am
Why do discussions about say, alcohol, never degenerate into an assumption that allowing people to drink means they will get pissed while driving or working?  

Why must the anti-weed folks always frame things using the worst case scenario?  Most people don't drink when they get up in the morning and continually 'top-up' throughout the day and night, so why work on the assumption that if weed were legal, this is how it would be used?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:17am

Quote:
The Groningen Mental Enhancement Department in the Netherlands recently conducted a one-year study to see how gaming and cannabis can affect the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. All the test subjects played increasingly challenging games each day, but half the group was also administered smoke. Would you believe that the marijuana test group scored 43 percent better memory retention than the control group?


Interesting.  
Seems to throw cold water on the flawed assumption that a brain functioning differently under the effects of weed can only be a negative.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:29am

Quote:
Addict is a strong word - but the words "habitual user" can be substituted if you like. It all comes down to the same meaning in the end. I have known people who've needed to go into rehab for their "habit" - so it would depend on the individual as to whether they became "addicted".


Nope, it's not an acceptable substitute at all.
Those that you know who went into rehab shouldn't have gone there at all. Their "addiction" was not at all physical if only for marijuana.
That would be a massive, and maybe even a fatal mistake to send them to one of those places on account of marijuana use.
Most times, a baby will come along and the bong-head suddenly becomes a resposible father..that's until the politically endorsed divorce happens and he subsequently blows his head off.

IMO, rehab centres are very bad news for even physical drug addictions.
Amy Winehouse told it clear as clear could be. She won't go.
In the end, she attended, but stayed true to her word. True brilliance to the end.i









Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:32am

... wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:17am:

Quote:
The Groningen Mental Enhancement Department in the Netherlands recently conducted a one-year study to see how gaming and cannabis can affect the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. All the test subjects played increasingly challenging games each day, but half the group was also administered smoke. Would you believe that the marijuana test group scored 43 percent better memory retention than the control group?


Interesting.  
Seems to throw cold water on the flawed assumption that a brain functioning differently under the effects of weed can only be a negative.


That is very interesting and marijuana on prescription should be available to those who are sick.

There are health benefits of course - but for someone with a clear and healthy mind - it obviously doesn't have the same positive result.


Quote:
Why do discussions about say, alcohol, never degenerate into an assumption that allowing people to drink means they will get pissed while driving or working?  

Why must the anti-weed folks always frame things using the worst case scenario?  Most people don't drink when they get up in the morning and continually 'top-up' throughout the day and night, so why work on the assumption that if weed were legal, this is how it would be used?


I'm not anti-weed - it just has its place as a tonic for the ill or for those who enjoy it - smoke it in your own free time. You and some others have claimed that most of us wouldn't have a clue whether a worker was stoned or not and maybe that's true in some cases, but you can at least smell alcohol on others which gives you a warning.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:45am

Quote:
I'm not anti-weed - it just has its place as a tonic for the ill or for those who enjoy it - smoke it in your own free time. You and some others have claimed that most of us wouldn't have a clue whether a worker was stoned or not and maybe that's true in some cases, but you can at least smell alcohol on others which gives you a warning.


Does it come down to the "age old" fear of the unknown Mantra?

You want to know if/when somebody may be under the evil influence of marijuana?
You probably fear it because you don't really understand that it's primarily a male drug and primarily to do with male thingos. That's why most females don't use it.
If you knew how much more of a "female perspective/understanding" it can provide to males, you'd be packing bongs left right and centre  ;D




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 11:08am

mantra wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:01am:
Your above statement alone Amadd indicates that cannabis does not have a positive influence on your brain. Long term users usually suffer from depression and paranoia - symptoms that could be avoided or lessened if they modified their "habit".


Of course, there's no evidence of that on this thread  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 11:55am

Quote:
Your above statement alone Amadd indicates that cannabis does not have a positive influence on your brain. Long term users usually suffer from depression and paranoia - symptoms that could be avoided or lessened if they modified their "habit".


That was an amusing statement was it not?

Actually I rarely use marijuana at all these days..ie: 15 yrs or so.

FYI, short term users usually find the paranoia a difficult obstacle to overcome to complete a nice high. Obviously you are well misinformed and really have no idea of what you are talking about.  ;D

Nahhh..I'm not really paranoid. I think that you guys have been hatched from the "Nerd egg".

I mean, why attack simple logic? Doesn't it make sense to you at all?


Anyway...I got a tune for you guys...just forget and enjoy if you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mikBXb8vrn8



Just rise...





Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 12:01pm

O))) wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 2:19pm:

muso wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 10:16am:

O))) wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 9:33am:
He's right though.



I agree. It's quite possible that he is on a disability pension for severe anxiety as a result of his drug habits.  On the other hand he could be just a troll.


I think you misunderstood me.



I didn't. I was just being mischievous.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 12:19pm
I love that song.

No requirement of ganga for me to enjoy that one.
I'm just a naturally stoned MF.

Thanks for your appreciation too muso. You really are a useless but appreciative piece of crapola  ;D




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lepper on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 1:02pm

Quote:
No matter how well it is assumed they do their task - if you were honest you would admit they do their task better when they're straight.


From personal experience, I beg to differ. I went to work (cooking in restaraunt) baked for about 6 months straight. Never had any complaints, but I wouldn't go in completely buggered up either. Since I've stopped smoking I would say there has been no change in my abilities. Nobody noticed a sudden change in my behaviour or abilities to my knowledge either.

I attribute this to tolerance and being comfortable with being high. If you smoke enough being stoned becomes the norm and you will find you can function perfectly well in public or in a stressful situation. Not that I recommend this, but I doubt people with no tolerance would get stoned and go to work as this would most likely become a very uncomfortable situation.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 1:06pm

Quote:
You want to know if/when somebody may be under the evil influence of marijuana?
You probably fear it because you don't really understand that it's primarily a male drug and primarily to do with male thingos. That's why most females don't use it.


Haha. Yes Amadd - I immediately think of male thingos when cannabis is mentioned. There are plenty of females who indulge as well. I didn't even associate it particularly with males, although come to think of it......

::)


Quote:
FYI, short term users usually find the paranoia a difficult obstacle to overcome to complete a nice high. Obviously you are well misinformed and really have no idea of what you are talking about.  Grin

Nahhh..I'm not really paranoid. I think that you guys have been hatched from the "Nerd egg".

I mean, why attack simple logic? Doesn't it make sense to you at all?


Strangely - I was thinking of people I've known over the years who've smoked it. Are you sure you're not paranoid Amadd? You said in one of your earlier posts that you hadn't smoked it for a long time so you're obviously not a habitual user.

I've allowed people to smoke on my property (a bit reluctantly) - as long as they've gone out to the garage and made sure the windows & doors are closed (so the neighbours don't smell it). They have to smoke it in a joint also - less smoke - so I'm not that nerdish. I know  a lot of people smoke it and I accept that.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 1:23pm

muso wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 11:08am:

mantra wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:01am:
Your above statement alone Amadd indicates that cannabis does not have a positive influence on your brain. Long term users usually suffer from depression and paranoia - symptoms that could be avoided or lessened if they modified their "habit".


Of course, there's no evidence of that on this thread  ;D



true.  One does need to be remarkably paranoid to think that legalising weed would result in a rash of smoke-related catastrophes.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 1:35pm

... wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 1:23pm:

muso wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 11:08am:

mantra wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:01am:
Your above statement alone Amadd indicates that cannabis does not have a positive influence on your brain. Long term users usually suffer from depression and paranoia - symptoms that could be avoided or lessened if they modified their "habit".


Of course, there's no evidence of that on this thread  ;D



true.  One does need to be remarkably paranoid to think that legalising weed would result in a rash of smoke-related catastrophes.  


- or just a nasty rash for that matter.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 11:22pm
All very interesting comments - ill-informed and/or  instructive .
There is No such thing as a Pot addict.!!   Sooo sorry Mantra - wrong again.

The comments also show a very clear dichotomy in existence on this issue, not just at this 'forum' level -  but also at a 'worldwide' level.

I can't believe this is irreconcilable - -   after all we're not talking about RELIGION.!  :o .. ;D...

...And - we are adults-not foolish and fearful innocents.  What is your problem???  What is too hard for you to grasp?
I know Muso is just a stirrer- -- a 'troll'???   but Mantra worries me.
Surely - it's time to try a new approach.!! :-?

I have often mused upon this current WOD sh*tfight..  and wondered....

What if  it wasn't the 'cannibalistic'  Blood and Body of Christ consumed in sacrament, ..BUT .. the 'calming'
 'Breath and Bounty' of Christ, with Pot /Hashish  the symbol for both.?? - instead of wine and wafer??.
Would we live in a different world today??????

I really think we would.! :)  Sigh.  
At least in that.. Islam got the drugs right.!!!!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 5th, 2011 at 5:25am

Quote:
No matter how well it is assumed they do their task - if you were honest you would admit they do their task better when they're straight.

If you're a brickies' labourer and had a repetitive and thoughtless job - perhaps you could manage for a while, but even a seasoned user, although not admitting it, would prefer their service providers to be straight with their minds clear.


Well, put it this way: If I were under the influence of cannabis, I would perform my tasks in a more careful and thoughtful manner than usual.
I somewhat agree that normal tasks are better performed whilst not being under the influence of cannabis, however, studies have shown only a negligible difference there, if any.

Factors such as stress and tiredness have far more of an influence upon performance than cannabis.
There are accepted drugs around such as caffeine, which can provide a short term fix to tiredness.
And alcohol might provide a short term fix for stress, however, the following day, and when the vast majority of alcohol is out of the system (ie: undetectable), it can still be a massive problem as far as performance is concerned. Unfortunately, I'm pretty experienced in that department - I try to avoid the hangover performance problem if I can.
That's when I was wishing I got wasted on cannabis, 'cause I never experienced any hangover problem there.


Quote:
If habitual users aren't addicted, why do they have the need to indulge themselves so frequently?


I suppose it's of their own personal opinion that their life rolls along more smoothly with cannabis as an ingredient.
Is it that much of a problem for you? Have they strung up your cat on your front porch or done anything so sinister for you to have any reason to think that they are out to get you?



Quote:
Yes - and underestimating your abilities is just as bad as overestimating them. Would you want a surgeon performing an intricate and delicate operation on you and wondering to himself which vein should he clamp next - or should he make an incision here or over there?


What I am saying is that it is far more likely that a surgeon would go ahead and perform the operation after a few beers than after a few bongs, even though the surgeon would be far more competent to perform the task after a few bongs than after a few beers. Do you get my meaning there?
I think that any experienced cannabis user would understand my meaning there.


Quote:
Your above statement alone Amadd indicates that cannabis does not have a positive influence on your brain. Long term users usually suffer from depression and paranoia - symptoms that could be avoided or lessened if they modified their "habit".


This sentence is so blatantly wrong IMO: "Long term users usually suffer from depression and paranoia - symptoms that could be avoided or lessened if they modified their "habit".

You're talking about chicken and egg stuff there Mantra. Which came first?
IMO, it's sad that those who provide such great emotional and talented works tend to always fight a losing battle with themselves, but would it be even sadder for all of us if they didn't put up the fight for their own inherent talent?
Would Amy Winehouse (or many other talents) still be alive today if the "general public" had listened to her initial "famous" statement that she won't go to rehab? I think yes. They/we forced her into rehab., now she's dead 'cause we killed her. We craved her talent, but not her method of providing that talent.

Do you have something greater to add than the talent which has been displayed by these "so called" dead-head loser drug addicts?
I know I don't, and I don't see any real evidence that you do either.

With or without the presence of "mind altering" substances, the story has been the same since the advent of humanity. There's always been people willing to risk themselves for a certain cause.
OK, we can do away with all mind altering substances..but would that stop Islamic extremists from becoming Islamic extremists? Would that stop Christian extremists? Would that stop political extremists?
Would that stop peadophiles, ..would it cure autism..etc. etc.?

So if you don't fall into one of these "accepted categories", then we all (by default) must adhere to the drone lifestyle that you condone. Is that the way it is?



Have a bong Mantra  ;D





Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Aug 5th, 2011 at 11:51am

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 5th, 2011 at 1:14pm

Amadd wrote on Aug 5th, 2011 at 5:25am:
I suppose it's of their own personal opinion that their life rolls along more smoothly with cannabis as an ingredient.
Is it that much of a problem for you? Have they strung up your cat on your front porch or done anything so sinister for you to have any reason to think that they are out to get you?


I'm not trying to stop anyone from having fun - just don't have that sort of fun if you're doing me or my family a service.

When my children were at school it surprised me how many of their peer's parents smoked, but neither of them had any association with cannabis or even recognised the smell until my son at 11 went to a mate's place and his father was sitting around with some mates having a few bongs. It's totally irresponsible to subject & condition your kids to accepting drugs as "normal".

If people want to smoke - they can, but not in the presence of young children.  A lot of kids take it for granted that it's normal to smoke grass because they've grown up with it. Both mine went through a phase in their late teens where they smoked sometimes, but fortunately it didn't do much for either of them and now in their 20's they aren't interested in the stuff (I hope).


Quote:
What I am saying is that it is far more likely that a surgeon would go ahead and perform the operation after a few beers than after a few bongs, even though the surgeon would be far more competent to perform the task after a few bongs than after a few beers. Do you get my meaning there?
I think that any experienced cannabis user would understand my meaning there.


No Amadd I don't think a surgeon would be more competent under the influence of any mind altering drug - alcohol and cannabis are both as bad as each other under certain conditions.


Quote:
You're talking about chicken and egg stuff there Mantra. Which came first?
IMO, it's sad that those who provide such great emotional and talented works tend to always fight a losing battle with themselves, but would it be even sadder for all of us if they didn't put up the fight for their own inherent talent?
Would Amy Winehouse (or many other talents) still be alive today if the "general public" had listened to her initial "famous" statement that she won't go to rehab? I think yes. They/we forced her into rehab., now she's dead 'cause we killed her. We craved her talent, but not her method of providing that talent.

Do you have something greater to add than the talent which has been displayed by these "so called" dead-head loser drug addicts?
I know I don't, and I don't see any real evidence that you do either.


I didn't call pot smokers deadheads - Jalene used that term to describe people who didn't share his/her view. I appreciate the talents of those great musicians who sadly lose their lives at such a young age. Rehab isn't for everyone - but many of these artists were unable to handle their success and coped with it by mistakenly believing they were invincible and overdosing. They are the ones responsible for their own deaths and an adult can't blame others for their mental issues.


Quote:
With or without the presence of "mind altering" substances, the story has been the same since the advent of humanity. There's always been people willing to risk themselves for a certain cause.
OK, we can do away with all mind altering substances..but would that stop Islamic extremists from becoming Islamic extremists? Would that stop Christian extremists? Would that stop political extremists?
Would that stop peadophiles, ..would it cure autism..etc. etc.?

So if you don't fall into one of these "accepted categories", then we all (by default) must adhere to the drone lifestyle that you condone. Is that the way it is?


These are opinions only and mean very little in the scheme of things. Of course pot smokers are harmless in comparison to the terrible attrocities committed by the extremists of this world and as long as they don't inflict danger on others with their habits - let them smoke themselves into oblivion.

I probably do lead a drone of a life by some people's standards - but it hasn't always been like that. We're all supposed to grow up eventually.


Quote:
Have a bong Mantra  ;D


No thanks Amadd!  :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 5th, 2011 at 7:52pm
Amadd - what you say is truth.

Mantra - what you say is fear-mongering.............And a whole lot more.

 Us and Them.

YOU personally cannot control all the things you'd like to.  
So you express it here - that is OK, but  -  understand - I  (we)  don't buy into your worldview.

I suggest everyone within your sphere, dances to YOUR song. Or goes elsewhere.
I pity your kids.  

Sorry - uncalled for- but you brought KIDS up. :-?




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on Aug 5th, 2011 at 7:54pm

Quote:
I don't want any services I employ to be performed by someone who is impaired.
-mantra

You are working under the false assumption that any level of drug use will cause negative impairment, and I have already explained that that is just not true, which I know from personal experience.

I gave examples of rock climbing, snow skiiing, and surfing, all activities I was very active in, and all which require a very high degree of skill, and balance to perform well, and I have done all of them under the influence of pot.
That does not mean that people cannot overindulge, and get so stoned that they would reach a level of intoxication which would impact upon their abilities, but that is why I said a sobriety/capability test, rather than merely testing for signs of drugs in your system, is the only fair way to approach policing such things.
If you go down that road, I can also guarantee that many young people with high levels of THC in their system, would perform far better than older people with no drugs in their system.
So, let's ban all older people from driving, their reaction times are slower, their vision is worse, they are a greater threat on the whole impairment argument, so how would you like to volunteer  for a test under those criteria?

Of course you wouldn't.
The issue about legalising pot is one of fairness, first and foremost, and harm minimisation secondly, but on both counts, legalising pot is the right way to go.
I say that from the position of someone who doesn't smoke, so I have no personal interest, and my main concern is that I firmly believe it would be a positive step in making ours a fairer and safer society.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 5th, 2011 at 8:04pm
Hilarious cartoon Muso.

Actually reminds me - of a little joke I made, occasionally, when living.... a former life.

When there was talk of forming Joint Committees, ...........I'd remark to a select few --

- well yeah - all very well, but hey ! ... what about Bong Committees??.  HHeeehee  ;D
Well I thought it was funny.!! :)


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 5th, 2011 at 8:08pm
Spot on Mozzaok!
'The issue about legalising pot is one of fairness, first and foremost, and harm minimisation secondly, but on both counts, legalising pot is the right way to go.' - Mozzaok

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 5th, 2011 at 8:28pm

Emma wrote on Aug 5th, 2011 at 7:52pm:
Amadd - what you say is truth.

Mantra - what you say is fear-mongering.............And a whole lot more.

 Us and Them.

YOU personally cannot control all the things you'd like to.  
So you express it here - that is OK, but  -  understand - I  (we)  don't buy into your worldview.

I suggest everyone within your sphere, dances to YOUR song. Or goes elsewhere.
I pity your kids.  

Sorry - uncalled for- but you brought KIDS up. :-?


Why would you pity my kids? Because they weren't exposed to cannabis while they were growing up?

You have used my personal views as an excuse to be rude and insulting.

Obviously you have no children - or you think it's fine to get stoned off your little brain while raising them?

We already know what the ramifications are of parents who condone their children drinking while under age - we have a nation of binge drinking youth. Do you think it's OK that they add pot to the mix also?

Wake up to yourself. Stop trying to justify your addiction by abusing people who want to give their children a fighting chance to make their own informed decisions about drugs when they're old enough to do so.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 5th, 2011 at 8:40pm
..


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 8th, 2011 at 12:08pm

mantra wrote on Aug 5th, 2011 at 8:28pm:

Emma wrote on Aug 5th, 2011 at 7:52pm:
Amadd - what you say is truth.

Mantra - what you say is fear-mongering.............And a whole lot more.

 Us and Them.

YOU personally cannot control all the things you'd like to.  
So you express it here - that is OK, but  -  understand - I  (we)  don't buy into your worldview.

I suggest everyone within your sphere, dances to YOUR song. Or goes elsewhere.
I pity your kids.  

Sorry - uncalled for- but you brought KIDS up. :-?


Why would you pity my kids? Because they weren't exposed to cannabis while they were growing up?

You have used my personal views as an excuse to be rude and insulting.

Obviously you have no children - or you think it's fine to get stoned off your little brain while raising them?

We already know what the ramifications are of parents who condone their children drinking while under age - we have a nation of binge drinking youth. Do you think it's OK that they add pot to the mix also?

Wake up to yourself. Stop trying to justify your addiction by abusing people who want to give their children a fighting chance to make their own informed decisions about drugs when they're old enough to do so.



LOL.  So why don't european countries have binge drinking problems like we do?  Why is alcohol freely available at the corner store or in vending machines, yet they're not falling down in the streets?
I'd be more inclined to place the blame at the feet of pissweak disciplinary standards and over-regulation of alcohol licensing, because your theory just doesn't hold up to even the most basic testing.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 8th, 2011 at 11:58pm
'Stop trying to justify your addiction by abusing people who want to give their children a fighting chance to make their own informed decisions about drugs when they're old enough to do so'.  - Mantra

I apologised already, for my uncalled for remark,  but since you wish to continue negativing Pot, I will continue to address your comments..
No - I have no children - BY CHOICE.

Why pity your kids??
Because YOU decide when THEY are old enough to be  'informed'!! When would that be, by the way? 16 ?? Younger??
Got to tell you - that's too late.!! Most kids in today's environment,  KNOW more than you do about it.
Your parental advice will not help your kids, will not- has not - given them a fighting chance.  BECAUSE??

....  Because your information is not informative, but propagandist.   Because YOUR KIDS know this. SO you become irrelevant as a source of wisdom, because YOU DON"T KNOW as much as they do, and they know it, and they wonder what other mis-informed, tho well intended, garbage you have told them.   (On a society-wide basis ..this leads -broadly-  to mistrust of the Law AND societal norms.).!!
They will likely come to understand  your position, hopefully, but they may not  agree.  
Unless of course, you are in an OZ equivalent of the 'Amish' !!!!!!! :-? Or they see you frequently, and you maintain your 'control' of their views.

YOU MIGHT want to think about it/??  'cos from comments you have made, I gather your kids aren't 'at home'  anymore, and you do not know if they do indulge in Pot , that you've warned them against.. :(
That is sad,  but Pot isn't to blame.

HOPE you saw 'CAN of WORMS' tonight. ( Channel 10 -9.30 pm QLD)
One of the questions was - Would you tell your teenager, that some people  smoke Pot just  because they enjoy it.??

IF you didn't -  try and check it out.  YOU might learn something.!   Of benefit to you.
Good luck best wishes :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Sprintcyclist on Aug 9th, 2011 at 12:01am


http://www.theage.com.au/tv/show/when-we-grow/when-we-grow-20110805-1ienq.html

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Baronvonrort on Aug 9th, 2011 at 12:18am

mozzaok wrote on Aug 5th, 2011 at 7:54pm:
You are working under the false assumption that any level of drug use will cause negative impairment, and I have already explained that that is just not true, which I know from personal experience.

I gave examples of rock climbing, snow skiiing, and surfing, all activities I was very active in, and all which require a very high degree of skill, and balance to perform well, and I have done all of them under the influence of pot.
That does not mean that people cannot overindulge, and get so stoned that they would reach a level of intoxication which would impact upon their abilities, but that is why I said a sobriety/capability test, rather than merely testing for signs of drugs in your system, is the only fair way to approach policing such things.


The issue about legalising pot is one of fairness, first and foremost, and harm minimisation secondly, but on both counts, legalising pot is the right way to go.
I say that from the position of someone who doesn't smoke, so I have no personal interest, and my main concern is that I firmly believe it would be a positive step in making ours a fairer and safer society.


Who was that olympic snowboarder who tested positive to pot?

The former Brisbane Bronco player "Smokin Joe Kilroy" also got busted for pot.
I thought they called him smokin joe because he was a fast runner,he wasnt running he was flying...lol.

Micheal Phelps with 14 olympic gold medals was busted with a bong.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_wFILVPOtnqNu7xtjkcHNaL;jsessionid=AF1AA152092888226B4965B3F9A34ED9

The Dupont family were behind hemp prohibition in the USA.
More than a few companies have a vested interest in keeping pot illegal.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 9th, 2011 at 1:29am
Indeed Baron  -

the vested  interests  control the political agenda - in ALL spheres, that is v clear!

and it seems -  the Law.  :o
Which is much more problematical. Sadly few with the influence and political access are interested in this today. Too many other probs.!!.. even if they aren't homegrown issues. !!!

I do hope our justice system can one day overcome the political pressure to uphold the status quo..

I am heartened by the HIGH COURT finding yesterday - AGAINST 'the Malaysian Solution!
There is still hope for an objective and impartial High Court ---
WHATEVER the Polls, or the fool troll pollies say.!!  BUT THAT hot potato I don't want to introduce here.

Just - it is a pity.........
A pity the High Court of Australia isn't presented with a humanitarian case against the current prohibition laws. It's been tried before, but perhaps - as govts - and their appointees change - so will the make-up of the High Court.

Because ..fatally...without 'the Separation of Powers' -
as required in the Constitution, and  which has been largely abrogated and ignored, or not understood,  by all manner of Oz Pollies over the years -  we are all at the mercy of the Merchant Venturers!!  Be they legal or illegal.

So much for the independence of the Judiciary!
Shame!!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Aug 9th, 2011 at 9:13am

Emma wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 1:29am:
Just - it is a pity.........
A pity the High Court of Australia isn't presented with a humanitarian case against the current prohibition laws. It's been tried before, but perhaps - as govts - and their appointees change - so will the make-up of the High Court.


I can just imagine the High Court being presented with a bhang.

M'Lord, may I refer you to the judgement in the petition brought by Ms Jalane for her constitutional rights to smoke marijuana

- Oooooh!  Mellow man.  

Excuse me, m'lord?

- hahahahahaha

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 9th, 2011 at 9:30am

Quote:
M'Lord, may I refer you to the judgement in the petition brought by Ms Jalane for her constitutional rights to smoke marijuana


It amazes me why anybody should need to refer to them as "M'lord",
They're not frikin' lords. They are simple people adjudicating on very simple issues.
There's nothing complicated about it. Either it is written or it is not.
A schoolkid could come to a rational decision just as easily.

The only complication is in what the rules actually state.
I think we've been well and truly duped in that department for many a year.
Jeez, where did value in separation of powers go?





Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on Aug 9th, 2011 at 10:19am

muso wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 9:13am:

Emma wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 1:29am:
Just - it is a pity.........
A pity the High Court of Australia isn't presented with a humanitarian case against the current prohibition laws. It's been tried before, but perhaps - as govts - and their appointees change - so will the make-up of the High Court.


I can just imagine the High Court being presented with a bhang.

M'Lord, may I refer you to the judgement in the petition brought by Ms Jalane for her constitutional rights to smoke marijuana

- Oooooh!  Mellow man.  

Excuse me, m'lord?

- hahahahahaha


I think what was funnier, because it actually happened, was the High Court ruling on Scientolgy's application to be legally recognised as a religion.
The judgement stated that they do not need to show any validity as to what or why they believe, just demonstrate that they do.
Effectively it means the criteria for being a religion is having somebody believe it is a religion.

They had no choice but to take that line of thinking, because no religion could validate it's beliefs through logical reasoning, so if scientology was excluded, so0 would be all other religions.

If we consider the farce that this silly legal definition of religion displays, it makes any other personal beliefs seem at least potentially, equally valid, from a legal perspective.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 9th, 2011 at 11:50am

Emma wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 11:58pm:
'Stop trying to justify your addiction by abusing people who want to give their children a fighting chance to make their own informed decisions about drugs when they're old enough to do so'.  - Mantra

I apologised already, for my uncalled for remark,  but since you wish to continue negativing Pot, I will continue to address your comments..
No - I have no children - BY CHOICE.


Obviously it was meant to be. We have to stop being selfish when we choose to have children and think of their needs and wants before ours.


Quote:
Why pity your kids??
Because YOU decide when THEY are old enough to be  'informed'!! When would that be, by the way? 16 ?? Younger??
Got to tell you - that's too late.!! Most kids in today's environment,  KNOW more than you do about it.


If you'd bother to read an earlier post - I said my son found out about it at 11 from an adult. Is that young enough?

I've always been open with my children and never kept anything from them - but a parent has to set an example. You can't tell a child that something is bad for his/her health then proceed to use it yourself or expose them to it continuously.

On the other hand when they do find out about it at a very young  age - do you condone its use by telling them how great it is and smoke the stuff yourself as an example of its excellence?

Kids need boundaries and parents are the only ones who can set them.


Quote:
Your parental advice will not help your kids, will not- has not - given them a fighting chance.  BECAUSE??

....  Because your information is not informative, but propagandist.   Because YOUR KIDS know this. SO you become irrelevant as a source of wisdom, because YOU DON"T KNOW as much as they do, and they know it, and they wonder what other mis-informed, tho well intended, garbage you have told them.   (On a society-wide basis ..this leads -broadly-  to mistrust of the Law AND societal norms.).!!


My children saw plenty of potheads while they were growing up including many of the dregs at school who remain dregs today making pot a priority in their life. I didn't have to spout propaganda to them.

They have no distrust of the law or mainstream society - nor should they. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. It's only the pot smoker with a bad habit who has fear of the law and societal norms.


Quote:
They will likely come to understand  your position, hopefully, but they may not  agree.  
Unless of course, you are in an OZ equivalent of the 'Amish' !!!!!!! :-? Or they see you frequently, and you maintain your 'control' of their views.

YOU MIGHT want to think about it/??  'cos from comments you have made, I gather your kids aren't 'at home'  anymore, and you do not know if they do indulge in Pot , that you've warned them against.. :(
That is sad,  but Pot isn't to blame.

HOPE you saw 'CAN of WORMS' tonight. ( Channel 10 -9.30 pm QLD)
One of the questions was - Would you tell your teenager, that some people  smoke Pot just  because they enjoy it.??

IF you didn't -  try and check it out.  YOU might learn something.!   Of benefit to you.
Good luck best wishes :)


I didn't bring up a couple of smothered weaklings with no mind of their own. Perhaps if you had children you would know that they learn to determine right from wrong at an early age, but parents have a responsibility to try to lead their children down the most positive path.

I know they indulged in pot socially when they were younger. They told me quite happily and of course I had no power to stop them - but it was only short lived thank goodness as they found their pleasure, health and control wasn't enhanced by this drug - just the opposite.

I'm glad that some of my maternal "propaganda" wasn't in vain and they've learnt that pot just isn't their thing.  ::)






Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 9th, 2011 at 11:55am

Quote:
On the other hand when they do find out about it at a very young  age - do you condone its use by telling them how great it is and smoke the stuff yourself as an example of its excellence?

Kids need boundaries and parents are the only ones who can set them.



And when kids find out about alcohol - certainly at a younger age than they would learn about weed - do you condone it's use by inviting friends over so you can all wet your whistles?  

Wouldn't that be setting them up for a life of alcoholism?  


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on Aug 9th, 2011 at 12:11pm
Wesley is right mantra, I appreciate that you are defending yourself on a personal level, regarding how you raised your own kids, and it would be better if the debate hadn't gone that personal route, but the fact remains that you are making numerous false assumptions, without any basis other than it is how you feel about it.
That's fine, but not reason to determine society adopt the same opinions, or reflect the same standards.

As far as kids go, we just have to try and give them the best chance to make good decisions, by teaching them to think for themselves, and whether they choose to smoke pot or not is certainly not an issue that would ever bother me, in fact I find the media driven hysteria about pot to be quite farcical.

If they ever got into speed, then I would have real concerns, because that stuff is a definite bad news drug in my opinion.
I have always considered it the most harmful of the commonly used drugs, and I also think that cocaine is pretty bad for the cognitive processes as well.
I think all people just deserve to be shown the facts, without adding our own hysterical reactions to what we think the consequences may be, because we saw something on a current affair of sixty minutes.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 9th, 2011 at 1:08pm

... wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 11:55am:

Quote:
On the other hand when they do find out about it at a very young  age - do you condone its use by telling them how great it is and smoke the stuff yourself as an example of its excellence?

Kids need boundaries and parents are the only ones who can set them.



And when kids find out about alcohol - certainly at a younger age than they would learn about weed - do you condone it's use by inviting friends over so you can all wet your whistles?  

Wouldn't that be setting them up for a life of alcoholism?  


That's a good point Wesley, but the fact remains that alcohol is legal, although the ramifications of binge drinking are on a far higher scale than indulging in pot.

Nonetheless - why add another substance to the mix?


Quote:
Wesley is right mantra, I appreciate that you are defending yourself on a personal level, regarding how you raised your own kids, and it would be better if the debate hadn't gone that personal route, but the fact remains that you are making numerous false assumptions, without any basis other than it is how you feel about it.
That's fine, but not reason to determine society adopt the same opinions, or reflect the same standards.


No - it shouldn't have gone down that path - but it did. I am talking from past experiences Mozzaok - drugs in the past have touched family and friends and although pot hasn't always been the main culprit - it's still a drug that is widely abused.

I have repeated here that I don't care if it's used for recreational purposes - but I don't believe that it should be legalised other than for medicinal purposes and even hemp grown for materials is fine.


Quote:
As far as kids go, we just have to try and give them the best chance to make good decisions, by teaching them to think for themselves, and whether they choose to smoke pot or not is certainly not an issue that would ever bother me, in fact I find the media driven hysteria about pot to be quite farcical.

If they ever got into speed, then I would have real concerns, because that stuff is a definite bad news drug in my opinion.
I have always considered it the most harmful of the commonly used drugs, and I also think that cocaine is pretty bad for the cognitive processes as well.
I think all people just deserve to be shown the facts, without adding our own hysterical reactions to what we think the consequences may be, because we saw something on a current affair of sixty minutes.


How I view illegal substances today isn't the way I viewed it in my youth - although cannabis never had the desired affect for me personally that others seem to derive from it.

I haven't sat from the sidelines watching TV shows on cannabis - I was a teenager in the 70's and everyone I knew smoked pot. Fortunately most of them outgrew it, but the ones who didn't and made it an essential in their every day life have wasted their abilities.

That is my opinion and I'm entitled to it even if it does upset those who revere cannabis.

Surely there are some others on this board who must agree with me? If not (aside from Muso) - then all I can say is smoking pot is more widespread than I thought. No wonder it's difficult to decipher some of the opinions on this forum a lot of the time.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 9th, 2011 at 1:15pm

Quote:
I was a teenager in the 70's and everyone I knew smoked pot. Fortunately most of them outgrew it, but the ones who didn't and made it an essential in their every day life have wasted their abilities.



A very common scenario.  As I've said here before, regular use WILL harm your motivation, leading to 'wasted ability'.  But, it is their ability to waste, and unfulfilled potential is hardly the sole domain of pot smokers.  Who among us can say they haven't wasted some ability to som extent?

I'd prefer my kids didn't use anything at all, but if they did dabble with weed, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.  At least I know they're more likely to be slumped on a couch playing video games at a friends place than roaming the streets looking for trouble.  But we've all got to learn our own lessons - I can tell them straight up based on my own experience, but I don't honestly expect them to believe me without testing it for themselves.  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 9th, 2011 at 1:42pm

... wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 1:15pm:

Quote:
I was a teenager in the 70's and everyone I knew smoked pot. Fortunately most of them outgrew it, but the ones who didn't and made it an essential in their every day life have wasted their abilities.



A very common scenario.  As I've said here before, regular use WILL harm your motivation, leading to 'wasted ability'.  But, it is their ability to waste, and unfulfilled potential is hardly the sole domain of pot smokers.  Who among us can say they haven't wasted some ability to som extent?

I'd prefer my kids didn't use anything at all, but if they did dabble with weed, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.  At least I know they're more likely to be slumped on a couch playing video games at a friends place than roaming the streets looking for trouble.  But we've all got to learn our own lessons - I can tell them straight up based on my own experience, but I don't honestly expect them to believe me without testing it for themselves.  


I agree with all of the above and if alcohol was suddenly prohibited - I would be arguing that it should stay that way.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 9th, 2011 at 7:46pm
Good comments once again people.

Mantra-I did read your post re one of your kids finding out about it at 11 yrs -   from another adult, in another person's home.
At 11 yrs of age he probably shouldn't have been unadvised by you about Pot. From what I read, you indicate YOU had not discussed it with him before then.
Which - if so - reinforces my comments.

But - I don't blame you in any sense - it must be very difficult to hold the lives of your children in your hands.   So many people fail - we see it everyday.
It seems despite your personal antipathy to Pot, and it would seem, Alcohol, you have nonetheless been honest with your children, as you view these issues ...  no fools they, ..and you have earned their respect.  
Good for you. :)

Re SPEED and it's offsprings - totally agree.  Coke the same.
Dangerous, to user and passer-by, ....not a good drug. No dispute there.

Which really only adds - crucially - to the proposition that Pot, ...and by extension,.... all other illegal drugs, should be managed and controlled by regulation - for the betterment of individual health, .........rather than criminal law codes being applied.

It has really never ever made sense to me that a govt would out-source such important community issues to be dealt with by drug cartels and criminals.
A TOTAL abrogation of responsibility.!! >:(




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 9th, 2011 at 7:56pm
'Nonetheless - why add another substance to the mix?' - Mantra

This makes no sense to me either.  
The substance has already been added.

My Mum - with whom I had open and honest communication, ...told me that 'the only concern she had about my smoking was that IT WAS ILLEGAL'.
She feared the consequences for ME, because of the position taken in Law..

By LEGALLY ostracising and criminalising basic human drives the Law has served us ALL badly, user or non-user.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Aug 10th, 2011 at 7:58am

Emma wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 7:56pm:
'Nonetheless - why add another substance to the mix?' - Mantra

This makes no sense to me either.  
The substance has already been added.

My Mum - with whom I had open and honest communication, ...told me that 'the only concern she had about my smoking was that IT WAS ILLEGAL'.
She feared the consequences for ME, because of the position taken in Law..

By LEGALLY ostracising and criminalising basic human drives the Law has served us ALL badly, user or non-user.


I don't know about you, but in my singular opinion, the law is not perfect, but I still think it should be respected. It's all we have.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I was brought up with the axiom "Just because you can doesn’t mean you should." Now I honestly think that we've lost something pretty fundamental in the last 40 years or so.

Without law there can be no civilization. In fact it was law that brought civilization, even from pre-Roman days, and it was the evolution of that law that drove the development of civilisation itself.

For me, the fact that something is illegal is a pretty important reason not to do it. It's not the only reason, but it's a valid reason in itself. In fact, that alone is not enough. We need to take affirmative action.

I think that we need to get back to a situation where the majority of people respect the law, or we'll all continue to go down the slippery slope towards total barbarity.  

I realise that I'm going to be howled down at this stage. It's a difficult thing to go against the trend of something as large as society, but I'm used to being the Don Quixote around here.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Aug 10th, 2011 at 7:18pm

Quote:
I think that we need to get back to a situation where the majority of people respect the law, or we'll all continue to go down the slippery slope towards total barbarity.


I guess I've spent the bulk of my adult like as the anti you (with any luck we cancelled each other out). Until the last few years, I cherry picked what laws I obeyed - both here and when overseas. I guess I was good at it - I stayed out of the big house.

While I agree with the bulk of your post, it's just that one little chunk of it that I disagree with. The majority of people do respect the law. Your average little docile chipmunk out there is pretty damn law abiding. Society isn't that bad and it's arguably better than what what it was 30 or 40 years ago. Sh!t that went on then barely rated a mention locally - unlike today when even a bit of scuffle gets national coverage.

News of society's decline is rather premature.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on Aug 10th, 2011 at 8:45pm

mantra wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 1:42pm:

... wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 1:15pm:

Quote:
I was a teenager in the 70's and everyone I knew smoked pot. Fortunately most of them outgrew it, but the ones who didn't and made it an essential in their every day life have wasted their abilities.



A very common scenario.  As I've said here before, regular use WILL harm your motivation, leading to 'wasted ability'.  But, it is their ability to waste, and unfulfilled potential is hardly the sole domain of pot smokers.  Who among us can say they haven't wasted some ability to som extent?

I'd prefer my kids didn't use anything at all, but if they did dabble with weed, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.  At least I know they're more likely to be slumped on a couch playing video games at a friends place than roaming the streets looking for trouble.  But we've all got to learn our own lessons - I can tell them straight up based on my own experience, but I don't honestly expect them to believe me without testing it for themselves.
 
I agree with all of the above and if alcohol was suddenly prohibited - I would be arguing that it should stay that way.


And THAT is exactly what makes you so comprehensively wrong about this issue Mantra.

You may be one of very few people in the world who does not acknowledge the massive harm done to society, and the world, directly stemming from the prohibition of alcohol in the USA.

Prohibition is a fundamentally flawed way to approach social issues of consumption.
Two reasons.
1: It does NOT work.
2: It creates far more problems than it is presuming to solve.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 10th, 2011 at 10:52pm
'...I don't know about you, but in my singular opinion, the law is not perfect, but I still think it should be respected. It's all we have..........
..For me, the fact that something is illegal is a pretty important reason not to do it. .........
... Without law there can be no civilization. In fact it was law that brought civilization, .........., and it was the evolution of that law that drove the development of civilisation itself. '
- Muso

That is pretty close to my actual point,  Muso -- .... the evolution of ...
You phrase it as ... 'it was' the evolution of (sic) Law that....'

THIS law needs to evolve. Law is never static, even if the wheels grind slowly, but it must grind on...  That is what is so important - the Law is vital, its impact society-wide, and... in my personal opinion,  a little evolution would be a very good thing.  
Careless acceptance of unjust laws has led to many evils. I'm sure you can think of some examples all by your self.


'Prohibition is a fundamentally flawed way to approach social issues of consumption.
Two reasons.
1: It does NOT work.
2: It creates far more problems than it is presuming to solve.
' - Mozzaok


Not so commonsense once again M. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Aug 11th, 2011 at 8:00am

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 10th, 2011 at 7:18pm:

Quote:
I think that we need to get back to a situation where the majority of people respect the law, or we'll all continue to go down the slippery slope towards total barbarity.


I guess I've spent the bulk of my adult like as the anti you (with any luck we cancelled each other out). Until the last few years, I cherry picked what laws I obeyed - both here and when overseas. I guess I was good at it - I stayed out of the big house.

While I agree with the bulk of your post, it's just that one little chunk of it that I disagree with. The majority of people do respect the law. Your average little docile chipmunk out there is pretty damn law abiding. Society isn't that bad and it's arguably better than what what it was 30 or 40 years ago. Sh!t that went on then barely rated a mention locally - unlike today when even a bit of scuffle gets national coverage.

News of society's decline is rather premature.


I tend to think globally. Some of the scenes coming out of England at the moment are a concern, where bored little prats get messages on their Facebooks to join in the fun and generally ruin peoples' lives and businesses.

The actual reasons behind it depend on who you speak to.  A common theme is the fact that they are disenfranchised from society for various reasons and see normal society as their enemy. It's certainly nothing fundamental like lack of food. Lack of expensive running shoes maybe.

We have the potential for similar events to happen here, especially in our major cities - let's not kid ourselves - there is a huge section of our population (a subculture) who don't respect the law.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 11th, 2011 at 9:54am

Emma wrote on Aug 10th, 2011 at 10:52pm:
'...I don't know about you, but in my singular opinion, the law is not perfect, but I still think it should be respected. It's all we have..........
..For me, the fact that something is illegal is a pretty important reason not to do it. .........
... Without law there can be no civilization. In fact it was law that brought civilization, .........., and it was the evolution of that law that drove the development of civilisation itself. '
- Muso

That is pretty close to my actual point,  Muso -- .... the evolution of ...
You phrase it as ... 'it was' the evolution of (sic) Law that....'

THIS law needs to evolve. Law is never static, even if the wheels grind slowly, but it must grind on...  That is what is so important - the Law is vital, its impact society-wide, and... in my personal opinion,  a little evolution would be a very good thing.  


Yes I agree that 'the law' should evolve with society, not the other way 'round.

If nobody ever breaks a law (or rule), then how does a society ever get a gauge on democratic opinion and human nature?
Will the polls at election time tell the entire story?

Is it society dictating to the government, or is it the government dictating to society?
Some people seem to be very comfortable with (if not a little too supportive of) the latter.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, so they say, but is everybody entitled to make their opinion count?
The rule of government seems to be, "Yes you have a right to protest (because we are constitutionally bound), within the confines that we dictate upon your land, as long as we have the right not to listen".

The TRICK of (western in particular) governments is to ask questions which are not actually poignant to society as a whole, thereby creating a facade of a democracy.

This subject is a nice juicy one which has touched on a lot of subjects which are the crux of society itself in many ways IMO  ;D

So far, we have seen no proof of widespread problems caused by marijuana, even though it has generally been accepted (on this thread) that marijuana use is in fact, widespread.

Those who have used it (and who have learned from it), generally have no problem with it being used by young adults.
In no way would I condone Mary Jane as  a "must do" for all young adults, but if their leaning leads them that way, then it can be a very nice thing for them and for our society as a whole IMO.

As has been said before, most people choose away from it, but some don't.
"The Beatles" chose to use it and wrote some of the best music in history.
Kennett thought that his IR reforms were a message from God over a bottle of scotch.

Mary Jane will ask you the harder questions. If you want to get high with her, then you'd better answer correctly.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 11th, 2011 at 7:41pm
[b]'I tend to think globally. Some of the scenes coming out of England at the moment are a concern, where bored little prats get messages on their Facebooks to join in the fun and generally ruin peoples' lives and businesses.

The actual reasons behind it depend on who you speak to.  A common theme is the fact that they are disenfranchised from society for various reasons and see normal society as their enemy. It's certainly nothing fundamental like lack of food. Lack of expensive running shoes maybe. '
[/b]- Muso

It seems encumbent on society, then, to criminilise Facebook and other global networks- because they cause, or add to, so much harm. !!!  You must agree!??
Nuh  - doubt it.   After all - how can it be stopped?
If people want it - people will get it - whether it's   on-line communities, addicted game-players, or other , - add your own harm.
See the parallel??


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 11th, 2011 at 8:30pm
'Yes I agree that 'the law' should evolve with society, not the other way 'round.

Is it society dictating to the government, or is it the government dictating to society?
Some people seem to be very comfortable with (if not a little too supportive of) the latter.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, so they say, but is everybody entitled to make their opinion count?
The rule of government seems to be, "Yes you have a right to protest (because we are constitutionally bound), within the confines that we dictate upon your land, as long as we have the right not to listen".'
- Amadd

no answer for you on that Amadd....  i was talking about Law as in the Courts of Australia, and the place they ought to hold in our society.
That is basically,  ... to be separated from and not influenced by the Government in political power. Although the Justices of the High Court are appointed by the Govt, - these individuals are supposed to be selected on merit. Their tenure as High Court Judge is not limited by anything except  the inability to maintain that merit.  
Briefly - That is deep experience and knowledge on-going of the Law of the Land, and the integrity to act impartially.

So - one of the reasons why the High Court is so necessary is because the Justices are not subject to the pressures that go along with being a pollie, or a Police officer, or a contractor, for example.

At least, that is the aim, I believe, of the relevant passages in the Constitution of Australia, around the separation of powers.
:)


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Obeseman on Aug 11th, 2011 at 10:08pm
In my opinion all popular drugs should be legalized.

Its not the governments business what people put in their body. IT IS MY BODY. IT IS YOUR BODY. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS BODY.

However if that person infringes on the right of others by harming them or destroying their property, I have no problem with throwing the book at them.

Oh and as for pot, it is pretty close to being completely harmless. Anyone that thinks otherwise is pretty stupid and naive in my book, ie brainwashed by the propaganda.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 18th, 2011 at 12:51pm
I realise that women are pretty sensitive.  :D

I would not like it at all that this subject would detract from mantra's POV, because I suppose the ultimate right thing to do is to not take any drug at all.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 18th, 2011 at 1:48pm
Mantra, you're a fantastic mother by anybody's degree.
It's always a good thing to keep kids away from drugs if possible.






Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 19th, 2011 at 4:09am

Amadd wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 1:48pm:
Mantra, you're a fantastic mother by anybody's degree.
It's always a good thing to keep kids away from drugs if possible.


I missed what you originally wrote Amadd. I hope it wasn't too critical.

We all like to think we're fantastic parents, although most of us aren't. We don't realise our shortcomings until our children become adults and you see them re-enacting your life and mistakes. Even if you don't realise it - they'll tell you, but we can only try and set some values for them and hope that one day when they're fully mature they'll remember them.

There are many things I could have done better in hindsight.

What I do know is that we can't tell them something is not good for them if we're not setting an example - hard as that might be at times.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Grey on Aug 19th, 2011 at 7:15am
"Herb for my wine, honey for my strong drink" Bob Marley

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on Aug 19th, 2011 at 10:57am

Quote:
I suppose the ultimate right thing to do is to not take any drug at all.
-Ammad

Tell THAT to a diabetic.
We are all brainwashed into believing drugs fall neatly into two categories, therapeutic, and illegal, but I am afraid the lines blend and merge so much that it loses any clear distinction, except for more extreme cases.

We have an abundance of therapeutic mood altering drugs, subsidised by government, and at the same time have people jailed for choosing a different mood altering drug, and some see no disparity in that inequality, but I do.

Drug use needs to be made legal, drug abuse needs to be treated as a medical issue, drug trafficking needs to end, prohibition needs to end.

The sad fact is that prohibition, and drug trafficking go hand in hand, and drug trafficking profits fund war and terrorism, and more young people are negatively effected every day.
The links need to be broken.
If anyone thinks the covert agencies have not been up to their necks in the drug trade for the last 45 years, I can tell them they are naive.
Does anyone think it coincidence that when vietnam was kicking along, the world heroin epidemic started?
Does anyone think it odd that now we see 90% of the heroin coming from afghanistan, instead of the golden triangle?
Follow the drugs back to the source, and you will find they are paying for a shipload of guns for people you would rather did not have guns.

THAT is what Prohibition enables.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 20th, 2011 at 2:21am

Quote:
I missed what you originally wrote Amadd. I hope it wasn't too critical.


Well after reading a few disparaging remarks about your attitude towards drugs, I got a little amorous in an uncouth type of way because it's always an attractive attribute IMO to see a woman being so protective of kids.
Not that I necessarily agree with your POV, but that's besides the point of what I think should be respected as a healthy opposition from a female's perspective. Anybody who knows you knows that you are the most caring of persons.

I would've chosen my (deleted) words more carefully if not for the influence of alcohol which I find hard to control at times.


Quote:
Tell THAT to a diabetic.


I was meaning to be referring to recreational drugs, but I agree that the line between a medical and a recreational drug can be somewhat blurred.

And yes, it seems that one of Blair's pretexts for war with Afghanistan was swept under the carpet rather swiftly.

From Tony Blair's Afghanistan Speech
Sunday, 7th October 2001:

...."We act also because the al-Qaeda network and the Taleban regime are funded in large parts on the drugs trade - 90% of all heroin sold in Britain originates from Afghanistan. Stopping that trade is again directly in our interests."


I don't believe that that was the case in 2001 when the taliban had heroin production reduced to a trickle.

It's my understanding that heroin production was restored via the attack on Afghanistan.









Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 20th, 2011 at 8:43pm
no one should be surprised -  if they've paid respectful attention to many posts on this forum. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 20th, 2011 at 10:22pm

Amadd wrote on Aug 20th, 2011 at 2:21am:

Quote:
I missed what you originally wrote Amadd. I hope it wasn't too critical.


Well after reading a few disparaging remarks about your attitude towards drugs, I got a little amorous in an uncouth type of way because it's always an attractive attribute IMO to see a woman being so protective of kids.
Not that I necessarily agree with your POV, but that's besides the point of what I think should be respected as a healthy opposition from a female's perspective. Anybody who knows you knows that you are the most caring of persons.

I would've chosen my (deleted) words more carefully if not for the influence of alcohol which I find hard to control at times.


I can handle uncouth and amorous.  :)

And thanks Amadd for those nice words.

Mozzaok

Quote:
We have an abundance of therapeutic mood altering drugs, subsidised by government, and at the same time have people jailed for choosing a different mood altering drug, and some see no disparity in that inequality, but I do.


The difference is that prescribed drugs can be monitored by a professional or at least that's what is supposed to happen.

It is a bit of a farce because the drug companies don't want competition and many prescribed drugs are more dangerous and addictive than cannabis, but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Many of the kids who smoke grass regularly today don't hesitate in taking other more harmful drugs - ecstasy, speed, cocaine and even LSD unfortunately and these drugs aren't regulated. Who knows what's in them.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by gizmo_2655 on Aug 20th, 2011 at 10:32pm

mantra wrote on Aug 20th, 2011 at 10:22pm:

Amadd wrote on Aug 20th, 2011 at 2:21am:

Quote:
I missed what you originally wrote Amadd. I hope it wasn't too critical.


Well after reading a few disparaging remarks about your attitude towards drugs, I got a little amorous in an uncouth type of way because it's always an attractive attribute IMO to see a woman being so protective of kids.
Not that I necessarily agree with your POV, but that's besides the point of what I think should be respected as a healthy opposition from a female's perspective. Anybody who knows you knows that you are the most caring of persons.

I would've chosen my (deleted) words more carefully if not for the influence of alcohol which I find hard to control at times.


I can handle uncouth and amorous.  :)

And thanks Amadd for those nice words.

Mozzaok
[quote]We have an abundance of therapeutic mood altering drugs, subsidised by government, and at the same time have people jailed for choosing a different mood altering drug, and some see no disparity in that inequality, but I do.


The difference is that prescribed drugs can be monitored by a professional or at least that's what is supposed to happen.

It is a bit of a farce because the drug companies don't want competition and many prescribed drugs are more dangerous and addictive than cannabis, but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Many of the kids who smoke grass regularly today don't hesitate in taking other more harmful drugs - ecstasy, speed, cocaine and even LSD unfortunately and these drugs aren't regulated. Who knows what's in them.[/quote]

Unfortunately true.....
It's also something I've never understood...If you want to earn a (dishonest)  living by making and selling drugs, why on earth would you cut the drugs with dangerous and/or poisonous substance????

If you kill off the customers, there's no repeat business..

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 20th, 2011 at 11:01pm
GROAN!!!!!

The difference is that prescribed drugs can be monitored by a professional or at least that's what is supposed to happen.

It is a bit of a farce because the drug companies don't want competition and many prescribed drugs are more dangerous and addictive than cannabis, [u]but a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Many of the kids who smoke grass regularly today don't hesitate in taking other more harmful drugs - ecstasy, speed, cocaine and even LSD unfortunately and these drugs aren't regulated. Who knows what's in them.[/u] - Mantra.

This is OK BY U???? How can you NOT see the fallacy in your position???

AND THIS IS THE REASON ITS OK!!!!!! THIS UNBALANCED HARMFUL DIVISIVE AND CRIMINAL POLICY?????


GROAN >:(
HELP HELP HELP !!!

Too many people like MANTRA - in the world.  GO AWAY -- PLEASE - your stupidity causes a small blip on my DANGER RADAR!!!
Sorry to say this but you'd have made a good nazi ---  and you are probably a good conservative, liberal voter.!!!  Sure to be sure you feel righteous and smug.
:P ::)

Shite happens..... it happens everywhere.! Not helped by blinkered folk such as YOU.
You make me want to ........all over...like you.
 
Enough is enough -  your prejudicial and (undeniably) well-paced comments - intended to rubbish people who actually KNOW about what YOU so conscientiously and abysmally deride - are becoming increasingly boring -  tiresome -even.

You cannot successfully legislate this as a criminal matter. This has been shown, and many many more knowledgeable people than you or I have sought a better resolution than criminality , BUT  -- SOME FEW are not convinced - and continue to promote and condone an utterly negative campaign AGAINST our own.
Sick sick sick thinking -  twisted sick bitter sad harmful thinking.!!!
Sadly mantra  --- I DOUBT you get it. :(



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 20th, 2011 at 11:16pm
'..........................If you kill off the customers, there's no repeat business.. ' - Gizmo

Yeah  ----  that's why the EBOLA virus hasn't taken over the world.!! ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 21st, 2011 at 12:27am
I think that the wrong message is being sent by separating legal and illegal drugs into categories which distinguish them as being either OK or not OK.

Yes I believe that marijuana can lead to the use of other illegal substances primarily because the user of marijuana might develop a flippant attitude towards illegal drugs after realising that the dangers they've been told about cannabis are basically lies, or gross exaggerations.

If the shoe were on the other foot, so to speak, and alcohol were the illegal substance instead of cannabis, then the pitfalls might be more apparent and more realistic.

Alcohol causes road accidents, cannabis doesn't.
Alcohol causes violence, cannabis doesn't.
Alcohol causes liver problems, cannabis doesn't. ..etc.

Sooner or later these inconsistencies between legal and illegal drugs will cause a questioning (by young people) and possibly a total disrespect of information regarding drugs if the information has not been not put forward in a straightforward and factual manner.

So if they lied about this drug (cannabis), then why not that drug?
Why not take them all and see what other lies may have been told?








Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 21st, 2011 at 5:25am

Emma wrote on Aug 20th, 2011 at 11:01pm:
GROAN!!!!!

The difference is that prescribed drugs can be monitored by a professional or at least that's what is supposed to happen.

It is a bit of a farce because the drug companies don't want competition and many prescribed drugs are more dangerous and addictive than cannabis, [u]but a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Many of the kids who smoke grass regularly today don't hesitate in taking other more harmful drugs - ecstasy, speed, cocaine and even LSD unfortunately and these drugs aren't regulated. Who knows what's in them.[/u] - Mantra.

This is OK BY U???? How can you NOT see the fallacy in your position???

AND THIS IS THE REASON ITS OK!!!!!! THIS UNBALANCED HARMFUL DIVISIVE AND CRIMINAL POLICY?????


GROAN >:(
HELP HELP HELP !!!

Too many people like MANTRA - in the world.  GO AWAY -- PLEASE - your stupidity causes a small blip on my DANGER RADAR!!!
Sorry to say this but you'd have made a good nazi ---  and you are probably a good conservative, liberal voter.!!!  Sure to be sure you feel righteous and smug.
:P ::)

Shite happens..... it happens everywhere.! Not helped by blinkered folk such as YOU.
You make me want to ........all over...like you.
 
Enough is enough -  your prejudicial and (undeniably) well-paced comments - intended to rubbish people who actually KNOW about what YOU so conscientiously and abysmally deride - are becoming increasingly boring -  tiresome -even.

You cannot successfully legislate this as a criminal matter. This has been shown, and many many more knowledgeable people than you or I have sought a better resolution than criminality , BUT  -- SOME FEW are not convinced - and continue to promote and condone an utterly negative campaign AGAINST our own.
Sick sick sick thinking -  twisted sick bitter sad harmful thinking.!!!
Sadly mantra  --- I DOUBT you get it. :(


Is it possible to get your point across - if you have one, without being abusive. Read back over your post and see how little sense it makes. You are a perfect example of a chronic dope smoker who has lost the ability to reason (not enough oxygen to the brain perhaps). Try attacking the argument and not the person and you might add a little credibility to your defense.



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 21st, 2011 at 10:38pm
What an easy answer for you.

You know very well what my point is...prohibition = BAD
You think .........................................prohibition = GOOD.
Pretty simple really.

Have to say - when people who know give comments.. you WILL NOT accept was has been said, and when you concede on some point - you never do so without the inevitable disclaimer.!!!

So - you don't listen....   reason fails, ...     maybe a bit of biffo will make you think. !!  But NO - uh uh - you will not be moved. You'd rather the status quo.  

I could call you worse things than stupid, righteous and smug,...  but I think you get my position.
Would serve no purpose,..just like every other post has failed to sway you.

You are entitled to your opinion - as am I. You are clear in yours, I am clear in mine. If you continue to post, I will continue to reply.  
But try a bit harder.  Your anecdotes of 20 odd yrs past are mostly irrelevant TODAY.
::)



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 22nd, 2011 at 9:18am

Emma wrote on Aug 21st, 2011 at 10:38pm:
What an easy answer for you.

You know very well what my point is...prohibition = BAD
You think .........................................prohibition = GOOD.
Pretty simple really.

Have to say - when people who know give comments.. you WILL NOT accept was has been said, and when you concede on some point - you never do so without the inevitable disclaimer.!!!

So - you don't listen....   reason fails, ...     maybe a bit of biffo will make you think. !!  But NO - uh uh - you will not be moved. You'd rather the status quo.
 

Biffo? What's that supposed to mean?


Quote:
I could call you worse things than stupid, righteous and smug,...  but I think you get my position.
Would serve no purpose,..just like every other post has failed to sway you.

You are entitled to your opinion - as am I. You are clear in yours, I am clear in mine. If you continue to post, I will continue to reply.  
But try a bit harder.  Your anecdotes of 20 odd yrs past are mostly irrelevant TODAY.
::)


You have no responsibility Jalene - you neither work nor have a family (in your own words), therefore you are entitled to do as you please. Yes you are a person in the "know" because you are a dopehead (in the literal sense) and can offer your expert opinion for those in a similar position to yourself.

I wouldn't think of trying to change the opinion of someone who is fully mature and unproductive - it would be totally pointless, but there's still hope for our youth and they don't have to go down the same path if they hear and see the right message often enough.



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lepper on Aug 22nd, 2011 at 6:58pm

mantra wrote on Aug 21st, 2011 at 5:25am:
You are a perfect example of a chronic dope smoker who has lost the ability to reason (not enough oxygen to the brain perhaps).


Can you please show citations that smoking weed leads to a loss of reason. I find this a bit hard to believe.

And while we are talking about dope smoking, I figured this was relevant. Hell, I might even spark one after dinner  :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24pOo5htg9E


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 22nd, 2011 at 9:17pm
yeah!!!!!!!!!!


you say I have lost the power of reason..........well....let's say

YOU NEVER had it in the first place. 8-)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 22nd, 2011 at 9:30pm
'.............but there's still hope for our youth and they don't have to go down the same path if they hear and see the right message often enough...' -Mantra


Yes yes yes - like I said before,  you like the status quo.  You like the propaganda and the battle for 'our youth'. What's more - you don't care if you're wrong.

Tell someone something often enough and they will believe.
Throw enough Mud   ..and some will stick.!!  
Divisive and nasty as they are,  these are your principles..

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 9:18am

O))) wrote on Aug 22nd, 2011 at 6:58pm:

mantra wrote on Aug 21st, 2011 at 5:25am:
You are a perfect example of a chronic dope smoker who has lost the ability to reason (not enough oxygen to the brain perhaps).


Can you please show citations that smoking weed leads to a loss of reason. I find this a bit hard to believe.

And while we are talking about dope smoking, I figured this was relevant. Hell, I might even spark one after dinner  :P


That's very funny.


Quote:
The THC in marijuana attaches to naturally produced cannabinoid receptors in the brain and changes how these receptors process information. The natural regulating mechanisms become blocked and produce an overflow of chemicals, causing the disruptions of regular brain functioning.

Areas highly affected by the drug include the cerebellum and basal ganglia. These areas are responsible for movement, coordination, balance and body control.

The cognitive system, including the hippocampus and cerebral cortex, are areas responsible for learning, memory and thinking. Cognitive functions are overloaded by THC during marijuana use and create lapses in thought process, time delay and loss of memory.

Research further indicates that there are long-term affects to these areas of the brain when marijuana is used on a regular basis over time.




Quote:
Yes yes yes - like I said before,  you like the status quo.  You like the propaganda and the battle for 'our youth'. What's more - you don't care if you're wrong.








Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lepper on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 11:27am
That quote says nothing about a loss of reason. I've never seen anybody lose their ability to reason because they are stoned. If anything, I would say it has the opposite effect in most people.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 11:38am
and what's more - is obviously one of 'those' scientific studies, used to  bolster one particular outcome.
The quote says nothing useful,  - obviously psychotropic drugs work on the brain.!!!!! ::)
Except

'.......cannabinoid receptors in the brain...'

See the human brain has naturally occurring structures in the brain, into which THC fits perfectly. No tinkering necessary.

What an amazing thing.  So, even though we are structured to utilise cannabis, in the very small scale of the human brain, you still argue against it??
SO  - you must be an atheist!!  :o

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 11:42am

Quote:
Research further indicates that there are long-term affects to these areas of the brain when marijuana is used on a regular basis over time.



I wouldn't place too much stock in research that was carried out by people who can't even spell 'Effects' let alone define them.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 11:57am

... wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 11:42am:

Quote:
Research further indicates that there are long-term affects to these areas of the brain when marijuana is used on a regular basis over time.



I wouldn't place too much stock in research that was carried out by people who can't even spell 'Effects' let alone define them.



Affect is spelt correctly in the context it's used in that sentence, but those who have smoked cannabis know that the affects cause disorientation, memory loss and the ability to apply logic to an immediate problem.

To deny that is to lie to yourself.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 12:09pm

mantra wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 11:57am:

... wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 11:42am:

Quote:
Research further indicates that there are long-term affects to these areas of the brain when marijuana is used on a regular basis over time.



I wouldn't place too much stock in research that was carried out by people who can't even spell 'Effects' let alone define them.



Affect is spelt correctly in the context it's used in that sentence, but those who have smoked cannabis know that the affects cause disorientation, memory loss and the ability to apply logic to an immediate problem.

To deny that is to lie to yourself.



No, it is not used correctly in this context. Maybe it's petty to point it out, but it is a pretty basic error.
Besides, have I ever disputed that long term, regular use has detrimental Effects?  realtively minor detrimental effects, but detrimental effects nonetheless.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 12:18pm

... wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 12:09pm:
No, it is not used correctly in this context. Maybe it's petty to point it out, but it is a pretty basic error.
Besides, have I ever disputed that long term, regular use has detrimental Effects?  realtively minor detrimental effects, but detrimental effects nonetheless.


Sorry - but I disagree.

When used as a descriptor or adjective, affect means to change, and usually refers to an emotion or symptom


....

to produce as an effect;  bring about; accomplish; make happen: The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring.

The stuff in your purse? Your personal effects.

The stuff in movies? Sound effects and special effects.




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 12:31pm
You really want to argue this?


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 1:58pm

... wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 12:31pm:
You really want to argue this?


I don't mind either way. We're both entitled to our opinions so we can agree to disagree.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 2:04pm
Well yah, but this isn't a matter of opinions, each having equal worth.  

One is right and one is wrong.  I know which one I am....



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 2:07pm

... wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 2:04pm:
Well yah, but this isn't a matter of opinions, each having equal worth.  

One is right and one is wrong.  I know which one I am....


edited error

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 2:09pm
Actually I've got to apologise. I think you are right.  :-[

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 2:15pm
LOL.  Apology accepted.

Now where were we?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 2:25pm
Haha. It's not often I make mistakes in English comprehension, but it happens to the best of us sometimes.  :o

At least we agree on this to a point..


Quote:
Besides, have I ever disputed that long term, regular use has detrimental Effects?  realtively minor detrimental effects, but detrimental effects nonetheless.


I don't think they are minor detrimental effects, but like alcohol, if you don't smoke the stuff regularly your brain and body has a chance to recover. Do habitual cannabis users ever give themselves a chance to recover?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lepper on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 3:01pm

mantra wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 11:57am:
Affect is spelt correctly in the context it's used in that sentence, but those who have smoked cannabis know that the affects cause disorientation, memory loss and the ability to apply logic to an immediate problem.

To deny that is to lie to yourself.


Disorientation and memory loss, sure. What are you basing your opinion of losing 'the ability to apply logic to an immediate problem' on? Can you post a study? I'd be very interested to read it over. This sounds like it might be true for a portion of dope smokers, but I really doubt it is true for all. Much like not everybody becomes disorientated. I can vouch for memory loss though  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 6:37pm
' Do habitual cannabis users ever give themselves a chance to recover? ' - Mantra

Tut tut Mantra.
Self-serving but interesting comment.

  This is an excellent example of the power of words,.. of the use of language. Not bad. Blatant, but appealing.

It works on the basis that 'one must recover' from cannabis use - in order to be productive, or  'well'....  This is the assumption that predicates everything you say on this topic , Mantra.

An excellent example as I said - it demonstrates  the power of 'negativity' - of 'us and them' ...   Which is used, in this case   -  to be divisive,... to present as credible,  but appear as anti- ... .
To attempt a subtle reinforcement of the idea that legalisation, and therefore, Pot, itself,  is BAD. !!!

DON"T BUY IT MYSELF!! :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 24th, 2011 at 9:54am

O))) wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 3:01pm:
Disorientation and memory loss, sure. What are you basing your opinion of losing 'the ability to apply logic to an immediate problem' on? Can you post a study? I'd be very interested to read it over. This sounds like it might be true for a portion of dope smokers, but I really doubt it is true for all. Much like not everybody becomes disorientated. I can vouch for memory loss though  ;D


At least you're honest in admitting to the disorientation and memory loss. This study relates to risk taking which would be associated with lack of logic when stoned.


Quote:
Using a laboratory measure of risk taking designed to address acute drug effects, 10 adults were administered placebo cigarettes and three doses of active marijuana cigarettes (half placebo and half 1.77%; 1.77%; and 3.58% Delta9-THC) in a within-subject repeated-measures experimental design. The risk-taking task presented subjects with a choice between two response options operationally defined as risky and nonrisky. Data analyses examined cardiovascular and subjective effects, response rates, distribution of choices between the risky and nonrisky option, and first-order transition probabilities of trial-by-trial data. The 3.58% THC dose increased selection of the risky response option, and uniquely shifted response probabilities following both winning and losing outcomes following selection of the risky option. Acute marijuana administration thereby produced measurable changes in risky decision making under laboratory conditions.


Early-onset marijuana use is related to later delinquency, having multiple sexual partners, and use of other drugs (Brook et al, 1999). Marijuana use is associated with criminal behavior, notably attempted homicide, drug trafficking, and delinquency in adolescents and young adults (Fergusson and Horwood, 1997; Friedman et al, 2001; Watts and Wright, 1990; White, 1991). Marijuana use has been associated with risky sexual behavior (Duncan et al, 1999; Kingree et al, 2000; Kingree and Betz, 2003; Staton et al, 1999) and chronic use may serve as a predictor for HIV risk (Malow et al, 2001). Marijuana is the most frequently used illicit drug implicated in intoxicated driving (Brookoff et al, 1994; Moskowitz, 1985; Walsh and Mann, 1999). After alcohol, marijuana accounts for the largest percentage of drug-positive motor vehicle crashes and fatalities (Soderstrom et al, 1995; Stoduto et al, 1993), and THC blood levels indicating recent use are related to increased risk of a car crash (Ramaekers et al, 2004).

http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v30/n4/full/1300620a.html


And for Jalene....before you have another fit of apoplexy - go to the site and read up on those case studies.

The average non-smoker of cannabis knows from long term observation of potheads that these negative studies are true.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lepper on Aug 24th, 2011 at 1:22pm

mantra wrote on Aug 24th, 2011 at 9:54am:
Early-onset marijuana use is related to later delinquency, having multiple sexual partners, and use of other drugs (Brook et al, 1999). Marijuana use is associated with criminal behavior, notably attempted homicide, drug trafficking, and delinquency in adolescents and young adults (Fergusson and Horwood, 1997; Friedman et al, 2001; Watts and Wright, 1990; White, 1991). Marijuana use has been associated with risky sexual behavior (Duncan et al, 1999; Kingree et al, 2000; Kingree and Betz, 2003; Staton et al, 1999) and chronic use may serve as a predictor for HIV risk (Malow et al, 2001). Marijuana is the most frequently used illicit drug implicated in intoxicated driving (Brookoff et al, 1994; Moskowitz, 1985; Walsh and Mann, 1999). After alcohol, marijuana accounts for the largest percentage of drug-positive motor vehicle crashes and fatalities (Soderstrom et al, 1995; Stoduto et al, 1993), and THC blood levels indicating recent use are related to increased risk of a car crash (Ramaekers et al, 2004).

http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v30/n4/full/1300620a.html



The average non-smoker of cannabis knows from long term observation of potheads that these negative studies are true.

[/quote]

Thanks, that was very interesting. The studies I left quoted surprised me even more, but not quite as much when I looked at who the subjects were. From the 5 I read through most of them had subjects who were either inner-city African Americans, adolescents in juvenile detention, under court-order or all three.

I highly doubt smoking weed will make a normal person into a violent criminal who crashes cars and has unprotected sex/HIV. Very likely the subjects environments are partially responsible, but they were interesting results nonetheless.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 24th, 2011 at 5:25pm
Quite so....... 'I highly doubt smoking weed will make a normal person into a violent criminal who crashes cars and has unprotected sex/HIV. Very likely the subjects environments are partially responsible, but they were interesting results nonetheless.'  - Quote- Lepper

How very, shall we say, re-miss you were in failing to advise us all what Lepper so kindly points out...about these 'studies'.
Shame on you.

'... when I looked at who the subjects were. ....most of them had subjects who were either inner-city African Americans, adolescents in juvenile detention, under court-order or all three.' - Quote - Lepper
Well done there L.  

Frankly I spend little time on the web,  for reasons long ago discussed -  'tho prob not this forum.  I certainly have no intention of following your advice Mantra -  I've read plenty thanks. :)

Why don't YOU google-up some respectable studies which are NOT specifically negative,?? How bout that?  Up to the challenge.?

You could try starting with the comprehensive study done by the British back in the late 1800's. Mainly based on the period of the British presence in India.
 Forget about earlier 'folk-lore' - as that is probably not to your liking -- being rarely mentioned , and never on paper.

Now THAT [u]WOULD BE INTERESTING[/u]!!!!!   :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 24th, 2011 at 6:01pm
'The average non-smoker of cannabis knows from long term observation of potheads .....' - Quote - Mantra.

  Huh???!!

The average non-smoker...... "knows from long term observation of..." .  Splutter- cough- splutter.cough..!!??? :o :o

WHAT????
:o
The average non-smoker...'knows' nothing about cannabis smokers.


Perhaps we are both trapped in our own paradigm?? ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Grey on Aug 24th, 2011 at 6:12pm
Smoking 'erbs is bad for you Jalane, you should only EAT them.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 24th, 2011 at 6:19pm
I do that too. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 24th, 2011 at 11:01pm

O))) wrote on Aug 24th, 2011 at 1:22pm:
Thanks, that was very interesting. The studies I left quoted surprised me even more, but not quite as much when I looked at who the subjects were. From the 5 I read through most of them had subjects who were either inner-city African Americans, adolescents in juvenile detention, under court-order or all three.

I highly doubt smoking weed will make a normal person into a violent criminal who crashes cars and has unprotected sex/HIV. Very likely the subjects environments are partially responsible, but they were interesting results nonetheless.


Parts of the study were a bit selective, but it seems that pot was the one common denominator. This whole debate was about whether cannabis should be legalised and it's obvious that it does affect a lot of the senses and my main gripe is that I wouldn't want anyone working for me if they were stoned. Even holding a conversation with someone who's stoned is a wasted effort.

Look around at the people you know who don't do very much apart from smoke grass. Are they honest, reliable and motivated?


Jalene

Quote:
The average non-smoker...... "knows from long term observation of..." .  Splutter- cough- splutter.cough..!!??? Shocked Shocked

WHAT???? Shocked
The average non-smoker...'knows' nothing about cannabis smokers.

Perhaps we are both trapped in our own paradigm?? Wink


Of course if habitual pot imbibers only mix with their own kind - they see nothing wrong with themselves, but on the other hand when a person who doesn't smoke walks into a room where everyone is stoned - you can notice immediately how nonsensical, vague and listless they are and their responses always confirm your first impressions.  ::)




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 25th, 2011 at 11:07am
More talk of habitual, long term regular users, as if there were no such thing as a casual user.

Is everyone who has ever drunk a glass of alcohol a 24 hour a day drunk?  No?  So why does this discussion constantly revert to a either a) daily users or b) people who get wasted at work or on the road.

It's all a bit of a waste of time if the whole thread is based on strawmen.

This is wesley.pipes signing out....

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lepper on Aug 25th, 2011 at 11:47am
Hehe, I agree 100%, Wes.


mantra wrote on Aug 24th, 2011 at 11:01pm:
Parts of the study were a bit selective, but it seems that pot was the one common denominator. This whole debate was about whether cannabis should be legalised and it's obvious that it does affect a lot of the senses and my main gripe is that I wouldn't want anyone working for me if they were stoned. Even holding a conversation with someone who's stoned is a wasted effort.


Obviously legalizing weed wouldn't make people suddenly start to show up at work stoned.


Quote:
Look around at the people you know who don't do very much apart from smoke grass. Are they honest, reliable and motivated?


I don't think its fair to tie in honesty, reliability and motivation to one question. Each should be answered individually.

I have experienced no drop in honesty whatsoever from my friends/acquaintances who smoke a lot.

There has been a decrease in reliability in some. By this I mainly mean if they say they are coming over I don't really know if they will make it, but, generally and in important matters, they are reliable.

For my friends who aren't habitual users I noticed a definite short-term drop in motivation. For those who are habitual users I notice no such thing. Some are very highly motivated, much more than myself and I only have an occasional smoke. They all keep relatively fit, they all do some type of sport, they all have jobs or are looking for work etc etc. Their ambition varies from person to person.







Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 25th, 2011 at 12:12pm

... wrote on Aug 25th, 2011 at 11:07am:
More talk of habitual, long term regular users, as if there were no such thing as a casual user.

This is wesley.pipes signing out....


This topic has dragged on a bit pointlessly. I don't have a problem with casual users and I doubt they're the ones who care one way or another whether it's legalised. They aren't the ones who are desperately trying to "score" day after day or getting ripped off or disappointed in the quality. The regular users would be the ones wanting to obtain it easily and cheaply.

Lepper

Quote:
Obviously legalizing weed wouldn't make people suddenly start to show up at work stoned.


I think a few people would be tempted if it was legalised. Overall it doesn't really matter because Australia is an ultra conservative nation and their policies are either black or white. Even if an overwhelming majority wanted it legalised - the drug companies would put a stop to it.


Quote:
I have experienced no drop in honesty whatsoever from my friends/acquaintances who smoke a lot.


You're fortunate then.







Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lepper on Aug 25th, 2011 at 1:59pm

mantra wrote on Aug 25th, 2011 at 12:12pm:

Quote:
I have experienced no drop in honesty whatsoever from my friends/acquaintances who smoke a lot.


You're fortunate then.


You've had experiences where weed has made people dishonest? What happened? I know a lot of dope smokers and none of them are dishonest because of their smoking habits. My alcoholic friends are a different story.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 25th, 2011 at 10:09pm
Like I've been saying for a while now - Mantra is a dogmatic and annoying propagandist - ............?

An offensive , and offending, commentator, who slags off others for their 'personal' comments,  and yet happily does the same thing freely.
As I've also said before-...... to you M- ...........your all-inclusive statements, which consistently insist  that  a 'caricature' of a human - 'the Pot-Smoker' -  is a danger to all non-smokers -   and is all around.!!.. and should be weeded out!! (oops Pun Apology!!) :o ...are so generalistic and negative as to be insult to any who don't accept your POV.

Such rigidity and inability to see beyond your own nose ,as you show, makes you a nuisance, - ... there' s  nothing worse than a fool who is convinced of their own right thinking, and proclaims it far and wide, for all to hear,... and bear.. 8-)  

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Grey on Aug 26th, 2011 at 12:28am
;D ;D ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HcXcYlF3_0&feature=related

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 26th, 2011 at 12:49am
:) :) :)

Sad no one listens but!.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 26th, 2011 at 4:10am
Mantra has her opinion. All opinions count.

It's only when all opinions are of similar experience that all opinions will truly count as one. For now, this is the democratic type that we are stuck with.

Times will change and people will become more experienced and knowledgable.

Patience is a virtue. Patience and faith will win out in the end. Stay cool Jalene.








Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mantra on Aug 26th, 2011 at 8:13am

Amadd wrote on Aug 26th, 2011 at 4:10am:
Mantra has her opinion. All opinions count.

It's only when all opinions are of similar experience that all opinions will truly count as one. For now, this is the democratic type that we are stuck with.

Times will change and people will become more experienced and knowledgable.

Patience is a virtue. Patience and faith will win out in the end. Stay cool Jalene.


Jalene is a very aggressive and abusive person. Is that the result of being a heavy pot smoker - maybe! This is only a forum debate and we all have the right to give our opinion without abuse - but obviously some aren't capable of it.

Lepper

Quote:
You've had experiences where weed has made people dishonest? What happened? I know a lot of dope smokers and none of them are dishonest because of their smoking habits. My alcoholic friends are a different story.


It's been a good 25 years since I've associated with people who believed cannabis was a priority in their life. I didn't find them particularly honest or even mildly intelligent, but that's only my opinion.

I will probably have to walk away from this thread also Lepper and it's nice to see someone being as honest as you have been, but I really don't like being abused by another member who is seriously inarticulate.  

The pothead on this thread has given credence to my argument that cannabis shouldn't be legalised. It's bad enough that alcohol is such a problem in this society so we don't need an increase in cannabis use. It would increase because it would be too cheap and too easily available. Those who couldn't be bothered looking for it now - would have it at their fingertips.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 26th, 2011 at 6:21pm
I'm quite cool thank you Amadd.   :)         This is a very old argument for me -- and I am very patient.

This happens to be the only topic I am following at the moment, and I think I am being assertive!! :)
    ......In support of my position on the subject.

 And certainly no more aggressive - or abusive than you are Mantra. Like I said - you want to comment,  and bring my posts  to attention - thats fine with me.   And - also - like I said - I will reply.

Insults/abuse are a bit like 'beauty' -  they exist in the 'eyes' of the beholder.

YOU are the kettle --  calling the Pot BLACK. (oops! :-[)

You are free to come and go as you pls,  from this topic or where-ever...
altho - IMO   you have no need to feel 'hounded' ... ::) ::)- you are just receiving a little of what you give.

It's your life.

:)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 26th, 2011 at 6:51pm
'Those who couldn't be bothered looking for it now - would have it at their fingertips.' - Mantra  

Not necessarily a bad thing. If true. I've known some full-blown alco 's who would have benefited.!!



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 26th, 2011 at 7:15pm
'They aren't the ones who are desperately trying to "score" day after day or getting ripped off or disappointed in the quality. ' - Mantra .
:D ;D

ummm.  ...think you're a bit confused there M -  sounds more like the paradigm of a 'junkie' to me.


' The regular users would be the ones wanting to obtain it easily and cheaply.' - Mantra.

Yeah  ...AND - wtf NOT??

Ever heard  of  .. live and let live?? .. to each their own ?  ..everyone is an individual?...do no harm?

Why continue to denigrate human beings , as an 'undesirable group'? (my words),  rather than as individuals, with all that includes, within society's embrace!!.

We have heard you  - we understand you  ...WE GOT IT ALREADY. :) :P

Anyone ELSE out there who is unable to follow my reasoning??  My abusive aggressive diatribe against poor old M..?? is that how you see it??

I'd be interested.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Aug 30th, 2011 at 7:43am
Unfortunately the clamps on social freedom are, and have been for many years, been tightening at an alarming rate in this country. As of Jan. 1st next year, it will be illegal to sell bongs in Victoria because they are (obviously, but not neccessarily) primarily used to smoke dope.

This might be nice for stores such as Clark Rubber, who as I remember used to stock pre-cut pieces of PVC tubing which just so happened to fit very nicely on a Spring Valley bottle. Poke in a couple of holes and 'Hey Presto', you've almost got yourself a very nice bong.

So then what? Are they going to ban small glass bottles? Will they also ban PVC tubing? Or is it the amalgamation of a few components which could land somebody in the clink?

Really, this Ted Baillieu idiot has far less imagination than those who are able to place a few common components together in order to make a simple smoking medium. Clearly, he must've failed paper folding in his arts and crafts class.

There's absolutely no use debating anything to do with social freedom in this country anymore, unless the outcome will certainly precure less social freedom.

The only way is to play it for all it's dirty worth and then escape to a nation more free than ours, if you are able to leave of your own free will and with your rightful assets. You won't, you cannot.

Yes, we are still the same ol' penal colony that we always were.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Aug 30th, 2011 at 8:55pm
'There's absolutely no use debating anything to do with social freedom in this country anymore, unless the outcome will certainly precure less social freedom.' - Amadd

Yes Amadd, and your other comments I also sadly agree with. Mind you, there has been talking about banning sale of bongs, both in Vic and Qld that I know of...for ages, but you can still purchase them over the counter in most major shopping centres.

Pretty dumb to my way of thinking. Anyone could make one-if they chose to. How ridiculous.!!

Which somehow segues into gun control.  A very similar issue, IMO, especially in the ineffectuality of the measures taken, and the resulting impacts on society.

Port Arthur gave the Govt of the day the perfect opportunity to disarm its honest citizens, and leave such deadly weapons only in the control of gangsters and cops.  Given recent news - footage plainly showing idiots with hand-guns, menacing say, a 7 Eleven cashier, gun turned side-ways (morons) like all them good gangsta crap artists in the Us of A.  How pathetic.!!
And the shop assistant??  maybe a baseball bat if lucky.   Or the shooting dead of a policeman doing his duty.

SEE  -  THE POLICE - cannot protect you, as the law expects. Not unless you are very lucky.
The Law requires that you bare your belly to the sword, - hoping for the 'guards' to come to your rescue , before you are gutted and left to die.
A person, in their own home, cannot be responsible enough to manage the possession of such a weapon,  but any number of children are obviously able to create hand-gun related mayhem, seemingly at will.!!
Makes NO SENSE to me. >:(

I suggest fools would be much more cautious about their violent anti-social activities, if they thought ther 'victim' might be able to FIGHT BACK>
Not a new suggestion - but becoming more reasonable ALL THE TIME.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 7:48am

Quote:
Which somehow segues into gun control.  A very similar issue, IMO, especially in the ineffectuality of the measures taken, and the resulting impacts on society.


Yes I agree. And it could also be a segue for a hundred different topics on "freedom of choice"- which is the basis of what I argue for in relation to pot use.
IMO, it's all about taking responsibility for your own actions.

Our basic Christian guidelines are fairly simple and straightforward. Not all that hard to live by IMO.
You don't need to believe in a fanciful (imaginary) man who walks on water to understand and believe in the basic rules for our Christian society.
Logic states: If you do the crime, you do the time.
If no crime has been committed, then there is nothing to answer to.

These days, we seem to be all embralled with "Insipient crimes". Crimes that might just occur because of certain circumstances.
If Jesus were an actual person, I'm sure he'd say something like, "Get over yourselves and get real with your definition of what a crime actually is".
It's not a crime to hold a gun for self-defense against attackers.
It is a crime to use weapons against "imaginary" attackers.

So, our governments want us to fear these "insipient" threats. They want us to attack them even though we don't really know what we are attacking. And they also want to hold the right to penalise their citizens (soldiers) who have committed no crime. They are on a bloody good wicket.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 8:57pm
'..And it could also be a segue for a hundred different topics on "freedom of choice"- which is the basis of what I argue for in relation to pot use.
IMO, it's all about taking responsibility for your own actions.'
- Amadd

Agree with the responsibility bit.  But these two particular 'freedoms' have planetary import, ie. some choices are more important than others.. .

'Logic states: If you do the crime, you do the time.
If no crime has been committed, then there is nothing to answer to.'
- Amadd

Today, our 'crimes' are defined by law,  and public opinion.  Not so different from 100 or 500 yrs ago. ...Altho you can be sure - the crimes have changed - and the accepted punishments.
Some basic crimes of course, remain reasonably constant,  ..like Murder, or Kidnapping.

Of course, this logic is entirely subject to the 'crime'. And who and what makes it a crime. And the 'time'.
 Extant or 'served'.
...............
A seemingly reasonable, but basically simplistic view, designed to support the powers that be.

I have heard the same thing said about everything from speeding to not paying child support. From drunken fights to homelessness.
Nonsensical really, to the 'average' person, who wouldn't dream of breaking the LAW.!!  
Yeah  -- right.!! :o ::)

Who among you, has never ever disobeyed a LAW.  ????  Is there such a person on this forum??? :-/




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Sep 4th, 2011 at 2:47am
Laws are created to be broken in a humanistic sense.

It's a bit simplistic to create even more laws to be broken which go beyond the humanistic reality.
So how many laws must we break in order to suffice an acceptable concept of human reality?

The impending question is: How many revolutions will suffice?

The answer to that is: The impending result of how many times our supposed democracy will ignore the truth that it was supposedly based upon.

So, if you want rid of revolutions, then you must first be rid of lies and egostistical failures. Not likely IMO.




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Sep 4th, 2011 at 10:01pm
Yes Amadd IMO too.!

'- if you want rid of revolutions, then you must first be rid of lies and egostistical failures. Not likely IMO.' -  Amadd

Not likely to happen,  at all,!!! ..and not just liars and overblown egos.......given the nature of the human animal.

.. .Never will everyone join the same clan....and that's what it'd take.!! .......for all of us to acknowledge and act upon the fact ! that we are all the same, ..in the same boat -  ON THE SAME PLANET....

.. It may well be something striven for by many - including the proponents of mass-media world-culture -  -- can't see THAT happening  myself...AND  .....no nation or person is seen to be leading by example.!! Except perhaps??

Greenpeace,.. Sea Sheperd.. WWF ..Wilderness Society ..Bush Heritage Trust ...etc.  And these are only relatively small partisan organisations which rely on their supporters to help try to make things better. Laugh if you like.!

  GOVERNMENT??? it's not NIL effort ... but .. it seems to be mainly 'focussed' interest - where the ultimate goal is continued economic progress.

Honestly??
..seeing as we've widened this discussion into what it really IS about,  which is     human beings..

I think that even should worst case scenarios happen all over - -even if the 'general slide'  or decline,  forseen by so many thinkers  becomes even MORE REAL to us,... than it should be now, ..  and populations become fragmented, and fighting for limited resources, and people band together etc etc
...
.. I think nothing will change in the basic human makeup.. Well.. nothing that is not already entrain, so to speak, in our evolutionary progress as organisms that are alive.
:( :-/ :-?

I mean, it's not that I cannot  'see' lots and lots of opportunities - for people to live better lives,...  people in general.

 But  !!!  AYE  there's the rub,  ... the people,  the mass of humanity... the unlimited potential, the profit of the people's labour,???
who are the beneficiaries?
 who gets a fair entitlement? -  the workers? .. is it for the common good, ???    or for their masters,.... be they criminal, business  or administrative ,  (which seem to be the only classes available in the view of our society) ..!!....  all are in conflict!!.  The wealth and product of the world is only available to a relative few.  oooops  - and religion too.!!

Revolution is already happening, right now this minute, around the world, in many places, ... so  it will be interesting, should our own little enclave of relative peace continue long enough.,  to see the outcomes.
Whether or not they herald in a 'new' human,  ... or just more of the same.?????

Time will tell, .. I won't offer an opinion. :-X :) :P






Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Sep 9th, 2011 at 11:10am
IMO, we need a revolution.
Stop all of this handing over of money (worked for wealth) for absolutely no rational reason.

Nope nobody needs to hand over money because they had a joint. Nobody needs to hand over money 'cause they went a few km/h over the speed limit.
If we do not damage anybody else or their property then no crime has been committed.
Is that so hard to understand?

Obviously it is, and obviously we are so apathetic as to donate money to that cause.








Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Sep 9th, 2011 at 8:16pm
Well certainly a revolution in ethical behaviour by those in power.

Examples in our society today are everywhere - even if main-stream media attempt to obfuscate with irrelevancies, at least some truth may be gleaned from the information available to the common people.
But so all factions claim. 'tis a pretty mess indeed.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Sep 11th, 2011 at 2:20am

Quote:
Well certainly a revolution in ethical behaviour by those in power.



That will never happen.

There is only power in numbers. Without that, people will bow easily to the system via the threat of fines fines and more fines.

It once was that there was an option of paying a fine (obligation) or choosing to serve an amount of time in the lockup. Unfortunately for them, too many people chose the latter and it ended up costing too much money to lock up an essentially honest citizen. Hence, they'd admit they've locked up an honest citizen and let them out after a day or two.

Nowadays, the threats will continue until they've threatened to take away everything that you've worked for over your entire life. This usually scares the crapper out of people and they'll pay up.

Protests on the streets don't work because governments have no requirement to listen - they are only required to allow protest.
If the protests get violent and degenerate into riots, then they have the upper-hand and the cause will be lost.

The only option I can see is a mass refusal to pay fines, and the best medium to organise this is the internet.
Even then, it's probable that unconstitional legislation will allow for further control measures in that department.

IMO, it's high time that people started voting for issues by the mere refusal to co-operate.
The only issues that you will ever have a chance to vote for or against at the polling booths are those that have been chosen for you....by them.









Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Sep 11th, 2011 at 8:31pm
-'The only option I can see is a mass refusal to pay fines, and the best medium to organise this is the internet.
Even then, it's probable that unconstitional legislation will allow for further control measures in that department.

IMO, it's high time that people started voting for issues by the mere refusal to co-operate.
The only issues that you will ever have a chance to vote for or against at the polling booths are those that have been chosen for you....by them.'


Ah - true words there Amadd.  Hard words too.

Sort of makes one understand why some former activists are now politicians. Just need more of them, doing better.
And, yeah I know - it's not likely to happen.   I never say never,  unless it is something over which I have control, 'cos its a big world.

You are suggesting something that reflects pacifist principles... !  :o  I commend you. To have impact one would need a significant support base, prepared to fund legal costs  et al. indefinitely .. Not impossible, given the power of the'net, ...
- but - ah.... the buts, .........  personally, ?  I don't think the Will exists in the on-line community - generally.  That's because there is simply too much stuff out there, and not everyone who might be more interested/concerned, is on the Net. I'm sure many folk do not use the Net, because it is,  what it is.
And to gather those who are supporters would require someone with lots of IT nous, just to get into view.  

This forum ,although pretty broad in it's scope, is still just .... this forum.

I don't use pc's much - .. I get a bit of fun out of popping in on some topics here, but am not generally active much,  ........I can only really act one on one, except for this .

I think , ...what you say  IS a way of challenging these unjust policies, at least in the public arena.     But - effective???  In this society,... with no Bill of Rights, ..detainees can be subject to gross injustice (no harm no foul?)- and, as a well regimented, and regulated society, despite the Oz self view as rugged individualists - few would raise issue.

Look at our treatment of refugees. :(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Sep 12th, 2011 at 7:27am
No, I'm not considering starting up some type of movement, I'm just throwing up ideas of what may have some chance of promoting changes in certain areas that otherwise would have absolutely no hope of change via our current voting system.

A prime example is this subject, ie: the right to use marijuana:

What do you think it would take for marijuana use to be legalised?
Clearly, there is no major political party with enough influence to bring this about.
There was once a marijuana party (I don't know if they still exist), but even (or maybe especially) the most ardent users of marijuana would see other issues, such as the treatment of refugees as you mentioned, as a more pressing issue than their own relatively frivolous desire to be free to use marijuana as they so desire.

Therein would seem to be be an honourable use of logic and empathy, but the point has been lost. In this instance, marijuana users would have no voice, merely because they logically place other more important humanitarian issues above their own.

So how will the marijuana user ever get a voice?

Current advertising is certainly trying to victimise those who say "a joint is OK", ...because that is the general opinion.
So if it is the general opinion, then why is it wrong? Why doesn't "general opinion" have a say in a so-called democracy?

IMO, there is no other way that will work better in our western society than the "Gandhi way".
Violence is always an option, but it lowers the cause. The use of fear also lowers the cause and renders it indiscriminate.

There needs to be be a clear and concise refusal to cooperate, without violence, to bring about changes for what we are currently helpless to vote upon.

A mass refusal to pay fines and succumb to fear tactics will eventually render them helpless, there is nothing surer. Threats and fear is what they base their idea of democracy on these days.
If I feel less threatened by al qaeda, which I do, then surely they have lost a lot of other hearts and minds also.



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Sep 12th, 2011 at 2:56pm
how can it happen??
people need to be able to recognise fascism, when they ARE IN IT.

Australia is without doubt, not a democracy in practical application of that idea. So we get to vote, but like you said Amadd, not for issues,  -  it's all about perception management these days.

Witness the carping on and on of Abbott and Co. Say it often enough, through in a few bogus stories of horrors and fear against the view you wish to destroy, and people come out of the woodwork to add to the shite. Sheep - in other words.

To show just how well 'managed' we all are,  just consider 'Wikileaks'.  That man has to be very brave to organise enough assets and skills to do what Wikileaks has.
Taking on the world's propaganda machine at it's own game was stunning.  But he has not escaped unpunished.
Lets hope the others who are not incarcerated, or 'held' for legal action, will continue. Hopefully there ARE others out there who want to know the real truth,  not the fabrications we buy into everyday.

Sadly, we become less and less viable as a species, and our survival is in no way guaranteed, so why do people just want to add to the downfall.
When America shut down the space shuttle, and now begs rides on gross Russian rockets, it was clear that the end of the game is closing rapidly for the US. Within say 10 yrs, they will be second rate - and will owe everything they still have to other countries.  Can't bomb their way out of that one.

The writing is on the wall.
New thinking, new politics, is the only way we as a species will reach our full potential.

All this hankering for the old ways, is a road to ruin.
Think about where all those 'old family values' which never existed really, in the first place, has brought us.
Children are sexually assaulted every 12 minutes, in Australia alone.  What does THAT say about bringing back the past?
Sorry - bit scattered today.  There is so much one could say about our human condition,  and I'm just glad that I still have the interest and passion to consider these things as an individual, rather than be a sheep.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Sep 15th, 2011 at 8:08am

Quote:
There is so much one could say about our human condition,  and I'm just glad that I still have the interest and passion to consider these things as an individual, rather than be a sheep.


Yes it's great to have passion instead of apathy, but without action they end up being pretty much one in the same.

It seems to me that we're encouraged to be passionate about issues as long as we don't (or can't) bring about a change.
As we discovered with Julian Assange, his passion to bring about openness and honesty amongst governments was all well and good until he actually started to achieve his goals.
There is no political party of any influence in (western) existence which will allow him to be heard, even though the quasi-democratic public would generally like his wikileaks to continue unabated.

We are very free to complain, as long as we don't need to be heard.
And the more complaints the better, as this causes a din of noise from the plebians which increasingly requires less recognition and acknowledgement.

So I wonder where you could go, and what you could do to actually get an issue such as "Legalisation of pot" listened to?
I can't see that there is any avenue whatsoever open to discussing the subject which might bring about a change in legislation, even though the mainstream opinion may see it as being relatively harmless, or even beneficial in some areas.

A couple of my pet hates are the retirement age being raised to 67, and the revenue raising from speed cameras.
I'm not Robinson Crusoe there, but will I ever get a chance to vote on those issues?
Nope, there's no chance of that within the paradigm that we are currently experiencing.

Obviously our democratic vote has been whittled away to a large extent and our way of thinking needs a bit of a refreshment.
It would be nice to think that we can accomplish a refreshment without going through the pains of other historical movements. But then again, we are the same people that they were.ii



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Sep 15th, 2011 at 10:14pm
Ah yes Amadd. 'tis sad indeed - the state of 'things'. :-? .

- but, inevitable, this process to further decay and eventual obliteration.  
So it seems anyway. :(
Methinks History repeats and nothing is learned, with a detrimental accumulation of wrongs - until..... all things change,.... and the next earth arises.


Best to enjoy the sunshine,, - and the rain.!! :)


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Sep 17th, 2011 at 1:20am

Quote:
Best to enjoy the sunshine,, - and the rain.!!  :)


Yep, and a joint too if you so choose. Because a joint IS OK.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Sep 17th, 2011 at 1:57am
the thing about a number/ scoob / joint / spliff  ....(with a wee dig at a former poster, a certain mother who claims that yrs ago she allowed young pot smokers to  'indulge' as long as they stayed in her chosen location,  and she said, she insisted on joints only, because that was better than bongs because of the smell???? )
I mean  honestly? what a pile of poo.  Fortunately she was soundly trounced in the ensuing discussion, and p--d off.!! Although I never raised this point at the time.

.. the thing is , in comparison to a bong, they are wasteful,  usually passed around, and, the unsmoked smoke gets into hair, clothes, on the skin and fingers  - yep - that smell is a bit of a give away.!!.
..... unlike a bong, which is usually a one person one hit thing, where the 'substance' is wholly inhaled, ..and upon exhalation, -...because  said actions happen at a 'distance' from the hands face and clothes, and the smoke has been 'smoked'!! .. the smell neither clings nor lingers.  AND more importantly from the economic viewpoint, there is much less waste.  Others may disagree.

:) :)




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Oct 4th, 2011 at 8:46pm
Hope you all who are interested see the SBS show I am watching now - about the 'evil weed'!! :) :)

So far - very interesting -  
cheers

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by GoddyofOz on Dec 10th, 2011 at 7:01pm

I've said it a million times, but I'll gladly say it again;

The ONLY reason pot is still illegal is because the Government cannot find a way to tax it.

That is the ONLY reason. Even the far right can't see past dollar signs. I would go as far as to call it the rape of personal liberty.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane33 on Dec 11th, 2011 at 10:24pm

GoddyofOz wrote on Dec 10th, 2011 at 7:01pm:
I've said it a million times, but I'll gladly say it again;

The ONLY reason pot is still illegal is because the Government cannot find a way to tax it.

That is the ONLY reason. Even the far right can't see past dollar signs. I would go as far as to call it the rape of personal liberty.


Totally agree GoddyofOz ...   >:(  Bugger it... Had a ripper reply but lost it due to stuff on-line.
That was days ago it seems. :)

It IS more important an issue than those who'd poo-poo the suggestion realise.  It really comes down to how much we allow our governments to dictate how we live, in areas of life which should have no such intrusion.  I mean, where it is clear the 'official' criminalisation of a 'thing' ..makes it more profitable for crims, and more divisive inside our society, and leads to obscene profit,!! the law must be changed.

Never have understood why it is that the powers that be allow this to go on and on and on. Someone is obviously profiting nicely. >:(

Well thats some of it anyway. :)


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jan 29th, 2012 at 9:40am
Legalize of course.
What right should the government have to say what you can do to your own body?
Victimless crime is not a crime.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jan 29th, 2012 at 11:25am

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 9:40am:
Legalize of course.
What right should the government have to say what you can do to your own body?
Victimless crime is not a crime.


You can do whatever you want as far as I'm concerned. Just don't drain our medical system as a result of it. Drug related medical costs account for something like $55 billion per year. That's $2500 for each man, woman and child in Australia.

It's a bit like patients with cardio vascular disease who go on smoking despite what the doctor says. The rest of us have to pay for the medical costs, especially if they are treated in public hospitals. 

There should be a limit. Those people who have expensive bypass operations and then continue to live uncontrolled life, drinking, chain smoking and doing drugs should be denied any further public care.  The same applies to those people who endanger their lives with drugs.  Deny them further healthcare. If they die, it will be no loss, and less of a drain on the rest of us.

So legalise it all for all I care. Just lessen the burden on the rest of us and give evolution a helping hand.

drugs.gif (36 KB | 53 )

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jan 29th, 2012 at 12:39pm

muso wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 11:25am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 9:40am:
Legalize of course.
What right should the government have to say what you can do to your own body?
Victimless crime is not a crime.


You can do whatever you want as far as I'm concerned. Just don't drain our medical system as a result of it. Drug related medical costs account for something like $55 billion per year. That's $2500 for each man, woman and child in Australia.

It's a bit like patients with cardio vascular disease who go on smoking despite what the doctor says. The rest of us have to pay for the medical costs, especially if they are treated in public hospitals. 

There should be a limit. Those people who have expensive bypass operations and then continue to live uncontrolled life, drinking, chain smoking and doing drugs should be denied any further public care.  The same applies to those people who endanger their lives with drugs.  Deny them further healthcare. If they die, it will be no loss, and less of a drain on the rest of us.

So legalise it all for all I care. Just lessen the burden on the rest of us and give evolution a helping hand.

I agree, and that point really just strengthens the legalize marijuana argument because its 100% less dangerous than alcohol, cigs and most of all pharmaceuticals. Of course there will be some cost to the medical system but if you legalized pot people would reduce their consumption of alcohol and prescription drugs which would pay for itself 10 fold.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jan 29th, 2012 at 1:08pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 12:39pm:
I agree, and that point really just strengthens the legalize marijuana argument because its 100% less dangerous than alcohol, cigs and most of all pharmaceuticals. Of course there will be some cost to the medical system but if you legalized pot people would reduce their consumption of alcohol and prescription drugs which would pay for itself 10 fold.


Only according to cannabis smokers and advocacy groups. Maybe that attitude is an effect of the drug, or maybe it's just a way of justifying the habit. Medical authorities say otherwise.

http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishing.nsf/content/marijuana


Quote:
The consequences of using marijuana may include:
....


This is another useful fact sheet from the US, where use of marijuana by teenagers is a big problem.
http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//PHD641/PHD641.pdf

Again, don't shoot the messenger.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jan 29th, 2012 at 1:14pm

muso wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 1:08pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 12:39pm:
I agree, and that point really just strengthens the legalize marijuana argument because its 100% less dangerous than alcohol, cigs and most of all pharmaceuticals. Of course there will be some cost to the medical system but if you legalized pot people would reduce their consumption of alcohol and prescription drugs which would pay for itself 10 fold.


Only according to cannabis smokers and advocacy groups. Maybe that attitude is an effect of the drug, or maybe it's just a way of justifying the habit. Medical authorities say otherwise.

http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishing.nsf/content/marijuana


Quote:
The consequences of using marijuana may include:
....


This is another useful fact sheet from the US, where use of marijuana by teenagers is a big problem.
http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//PHD641/PHD641.pdf

Again, don't shoot the messenger.
I didn’t say marijuana is perfect but it’s nowhere near as dangerous as current legal drugs. Prescription medication is one of the biggest killers in the world, even without addiction many can be extremely dangerous except you would never hear medical authorities talk about this. I don’t take the medical industry very seriously anymore, too much bias and too much money at stake for private corporations to ever get an honest perspective.
The consequences of marijuana on that link are pretty tame compared to many widely used prescription meds. I don’t see what the argument is if weed is a lot less harmful then already legal substances.

I think what I said before sums it up, the law shouldnt dictate what you do to yourself. Because when opinion becomes law it can get out of control, I mean to we make fast food illegal, or maybe driving? Heaps of stuff is dangerous but that is our choice not the governments as long as its only too ourselves.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:48pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

muso wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 1:08pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 12:39pm:
I agree, and that point really just strengthens the legalize marijuana argument because its 100% less dangerous than alcohol, cigs and most of all pharmaceuticals. Of course there will be some cost to the medical system but if you legalized pot people would reduce their consumption of alcohol and prescription drugs which would pay for itself 10 fold.


Only according to cannabis smokers and advocacy groups. Maybe that attitude is an effect of the drug, or maybe it's just a way of justifying the habit. Medical authorities say otherwise.

http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishing.nsf/content/marijuana


Quote:
The consequences of using marijuana may include:
....


This is another useful fact sheet from the US, where use of marijuana by teenagers is a big problem.
http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//PHD641/PHD641.pdf

Again, don't shoot the messenger.
I didn’t say marijuana is perfect but it’s nowhere near as dangerous as current legal drugs. Prescription medication is one of the biggest killers in the world, even without addiction many can be extremely dangerous except you would never hear medical authorities talk about this. I don’t take the medical industry very seriously anymore, too much bias and too much money at stake for private corporations to ever get an honest perspective.
The consequences of marijuana on that link are pretty tame compared to many widely used prescription meds. I don’t see what the argument is if weed is a lot less harmful then already legal substances.

I think what I said before sums it up, the law shouldnt dictate what you do to yourself. Because when opinion becomes law it can get out of control, I mean to we make fast food illegal, or maybe driving? Heaps of stuff is dangerous but that is our choice not the governments as long as its only too ourselves.


I guess when it comes to ignoring prevailing medical opinion because it differs from your own, the warning bells start to ring.

Perhaps the pure ingredients, taken under medical supervision wouldn't cause too many problems.  When it's not under medical supervsion, anybody can take any amount of a drug whose origins are unknown and may easily be laced with other substances. 

If that doesn't seem like a problem to you, then maybe you are desensitised to the hazards.

If the TGA is not credible when assessing marijuana, then who is?  A user?  An advocacy group made up of users?


Quote:
Effects on the Brain
The active ingredient in marijuana, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, acts on cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors, but other areas of the brain have few or none at all. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.

When high doses of marijuana are used, usually when eaten in food rather than smoked, users can experience the following symptoms:

    Hallucinations
    Delusions
    Impaired memory
    Disorientation

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jan 29th, 2012 at 5:10pm

muso wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 4:48pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

muso wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 1:08pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 29th, 2012 at 12:39pm:
I agree, and that point really just strengthens the legalize marijuana argument because its 100% less dangerous than alcohol, cigs and most of all pharmaceuticals. Of course there will be some cost to the medical system but if you legalized pot people would reduce their consumption of alcohol and prescription drugs which would pay for itself 10 fold.


Only according to cannabis smokers and advocacy groups. Maybe that attitude is an effect of the drug, or maybe it's just a way of justifying the habit. Medical authorities say otherwise.

http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishing.nsf/content/marijuana


Quote:
The consequences of using marijuana may include:
....


This is another useful fact sheet from the US, where use of marijuana by teenagers is a big problem.
http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//PHD641/PHD641.pdf

Again, don't shoot the messenger.
I didn’t say marijuana is perfect but it’s nowhere near as dangerous as current legal drugs. Prescription medication is one of the biggest killers in the world, even without addiction many can be extremely dangerous except you would never hear medical authorities talk about this. I don’t take the medical industry very seriously anymore, too much bias and too much money at stake for private corporations to ever get an honest perspective.
The consequences of marijuana on that link are pretty tame compared to many widely used prescription meds. I don’t see what the argument is if weed is a lot less harmful then already legal substances.

I think what I said before sums it up, the law shouldnt dictate what you do to yourself. Because when opinion becomes law it can get out of control, I mean to we make fast food illegal, or maybe driving? Heaps of stuff is dangerous but that is our choice not the governments as long as its only too ourselves.


I guess when it comes to ignoring prevailing medical opinion because it differs from your own, the warning bells start to ring.

Perhaps the pure ingredients, taken under medical supervision wouldn't cause too many problems.  When it's not under medical supervsion, anybody can take any amount of a drug whose origins are unknown and may easily be laced with other substances. 

If that doesn't seem like a problem to you, then maybe you are desensitised to the hazards.

If the TGA is not credible when assessing marijuana, then who is?  A user?  An advocacy group made up of users?

[quote]
Effects on the Brain
The active ingredient in marijuana, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, acts on cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors, but other areas of the brain have few or none at all. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.

When high doses of marijuana are used, usually when eaten in food rather than smoked, users can experience the following symptoms:

    Hallucinations
    Delusions
    Impaired memory
    Disorientation
[/quote]Medical opinion you’re talking about comes mainly from the pharmaceutical corporations selling the drugs.
Once again, I am not saying weed is perfect but it is a lot better than most legalized drugs. So if medical opinion is saying that these dangerous things are fine, why not weed?
Many pharmaceuticals can cause major problems with patients even under medical care.
Personally I do not see the TGA’s credibility when they declare marijuana should be illegal and then declare a drug 100% more dangerous is safe and should be legal. Are these the same guys that think it’s a good idea to give crack to children. I mean come on use some logic here. If they are saying something worse than weed is ok then technically they are saying weed is ok.
Delusion – Taking someone’s word for gospel because they have a position of authority.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Jan 30th, 2012 at 12:52am
I think if we look back through this topic, we'll see numerous times where Muso comes out on the side of the status quo.
Muso is righteous 'cos he quotes all these 'medical' stats, whereas any opposition can only come from users or supporters, and hence aren't credible..
What could THEY possibly know that isn't tainted by their own bias??. 
Look to yourself Muso.

As for INCREASING imposts on the tax dollar.... that flies in the face of common sense.!!
:) ;D

For a start,  .... all of those thousands of hrs of police time will be able to catch real crooks,,, with an on-going benefit.  Courts could actually be used for matters of real concern...all those criminals who smoke, could become honest citizens, .... etc etc... as for medical costs????  I can't imagine what you must think will happen if Pot is legalised.  I mean,  what??  all of a sudden non- smokers are going to go out get stoned and crash their cars???   Or.. non-smokers are going to start going to work stoned???
Plus.. done properly the govt, and therefore Us,, you and me, and everyone else, will derive massive benefits from all those billions flowing into govt coffers. 

Its Laughable ... what you are saying  ...it really is Muso.

Muso.... all your fears are non-sensical.. and no reason to continue to allow crime to run basically unhindered.  Why is it good to fund crims from the black market??
Why is good to allow crims to control the drugs our kids favour. ??? And so control our kids.!!!
( And not just kids I might add.) 

None of your - 'its bad for you fearmongering' is really worth a piece of pig s rear.!!!!

AND you are not a doctor.  And doctors aren't the be all and end all.

People living  cohesively is.
I COULD go on....  but surely by now you must recognise the folly of your continued opposition on the grounds '... its bad for you'.

I mean - you don't appear to be stupid...  but blind on this ... Very.!!!






Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jan 30th, 2012 at 9:49am

Emma wrote on Jan 30th, 2012 at 12:52am:
I think if we look back through this topic, we'll see numerous times where Muso comes out on the side of the status quo.
Muso is righteous 'cos he quotes all these 'medical' stats, whereas any opposition can only come from users or supporters, and hence aren't credible..
What could THEY possibly know that isn't tainted by their own bias??. 
Look to yourself Muso.

As for INCREASING imposts on the tax dollar.... that flies in the face of common sense.!!
:) ;D

For a start,  .... all of those thousands of hrs of police time will be able to catch real crooks,,, with an on-going benefit.  Courts could actually be used for matters of real concern...all those criminals who smoke, could become honest citizens, .... etc etc... as for medical costs????  I can't imagine what you must think will happen if Pot is legalised.  I mean,  what??  all of a sudden non- smokers are going to go out get stoned and crash their cars???   Or.. non-smokers are going to start going to work stoned???
Plus.. done properly the govt, and therefore Us,, you and me, and everyone else, will derive massive benefits from all those billions flowing into govt coffers. 

Its Laughable ... what you are saying  ...it really is Muso.

Muso.... all your fears are non-sensical.. and no reason to continue to allow crime to run basically unhindered.  Why is it good to fund crims from the black market??
Why is good to allow crims to control the drugs our kids favour. ??? And so control our kids.!!!
( And not just kids I might add.) 

None of your - 'its bad for you fearmongering' is really worth a piece of pig s rear.!!!!

AND you are not a doctor.  And doctors aren't the be all and end all.

People living  cohesively is.
I COULD go on....  but surely by now you must recognise the folly of your continued opposition on the grounds '... its bad for you'.

I mean - you don't appear to be stupid...  but blind on this ... Very.!!!

Muso thinks its safe to take dangerous chemicals when the corporation selling it to you says its ok.
And bad to take harmless substances because the people who cant tax it told him its bad...

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jan 30th, 2012 at 10:56am

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 30th, 2012 at 9:49am:
Muso thinks its safe to take dangerous chemicals when the corporation selling it to you says its ok.
And bad to take harmless substances because the people who cant tax it told him its bad...


No chemical is safe. We don't get prescriptions from corporations, we get them from medically trained doctors. Of the prescriptions I've picked up in the last year, over 90% were available as generics, so it's not even the big pharmaceutical companies that benefit. In my experience, (good) doctors will prescribe only when necessary.

I'll rest my case on the (lack of) logic of the replies you guys have given so far. I'm obviously not going to convince you of anything, but that's not why I replied anyway.  8-) 

The topic was in need of balance. The views of medical professionals and specialists in pharmacology are certainly key to this issue. In denying that basic fact, you speak volumes about your impartiality..... and credibility.

On the issue of health, who are you going to consult with? Plumbers? Taxi Drivers? Drug addicts?  or trained medical professionals?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Jan 30th, 2012 at 5:52pm

Muso says ...The views of medical professionals and specialists in pharmacology are certainly key to this issue. 
Not so Muso,  because a person is a medical professional or a pharmacologist does not make their views 'supreme'. on this or any other issue. And you admit it is a medical issue. You suggest you'd seek advice from these 'pros' ......Wouldn't it be a lot more effective for treating medical issues if the issue is LEGAL.
Pot smokers are not drug addicts, no matter how many times you call them that. Well, no more than coffee drinkers any way. :) And definitely NOT like cigarette smokers or alcoholics.

Also Muso, you understand I'm sure, that scientists etc are not 'as one' on this issue.
Get ten pros together, give them the same data,  and you'll likely get 10 different views.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jan 31st, 2012 at 2:41pm
True, there is one Medical Association that's in favour of decriminalising marijuana, but they have not exactly been welcomed with open arms. In California (hmmm)

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/15/local/la-me-doctors-marijuana-20111016



Quote:
Reporting from Sacramento — The state's largest doctor group is calling for legalization of marijuana, even as it pronounces cannabis to be of questionable medical value.



Quote:
"I wonder what they're smoking," said John Lovell, spokesman for the California Police Chiefs Assn. "Given everything that we know about the physiological impacts of marijuana — how it affects young brains, the number of accidents associated with driving under the influence — it's just an unbelievably irresponsible position."

The CMA's view is also controversial in the medical community.

Dr. Robert DuPont, an M.D. and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown Medical School, said the association's call for legalization showed "a reckless disregard of the public health. I think it's going to lead to more use, and that, to me, is a public health concern. I'm not sure they've thought through what the implications of legalization would be."


In some US States, they do permit "Medicinal Marijuana". The problem is that a whole lot of people have suddenly developed medical conditions requiring marijuana in those states.  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jan 31st, 2012 at 3:58pm

muso wrote on Jan 30th, 2012 at 10:56am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 30th, 2012 at 9:49am:
Muso thinks its safe to take dangerous chemicals when the corporation selling it to you says its ok.
And bad to take harmless substances because the people who cant tax it told him its bad...


No chemical is safe. We don't get prescriptions from corporations, we get them from medically trained doctors. Of the prescriptions I've picked up in the last year, over 90% were available as generics, so it's not even the big pharmaceutical companies that benefit. In my experience, (good) doctors will prescribe only when necessary.

I'll rest my case on the (lack of) logic of the replies you guys have given so far. I'm obviously not going to convince you of anything, but that's not why I replied anyway.  8-) 

The topic was in need of balance. The views of medical professionals and specialists in pharmacology are certainly key to this issue. In denying that basic fact, you speak volumes about your impartiality..... and credibility.

On the issue of health, who are you going to consult with? Plumbers? Taxi Drivers? Drug addicts?  or trained medical professionals?
Exactly so what your trying argue is pointless. There are hundreds of dangerous chemicals all mixed up into a cocktail in most prescription drugs; weed is THC and nothing more if grown purely.
You do realise that a lot of doctors actually get bonuses from pharmaceutical companies depending on how much they can prescribe. Why else would they be prescribing antibiotics to every tiny problem and diagnose huge portions of the population as having a mental illness.
I’m not 100% but I think a lot of people don’t go generic; the government just started that advertising campaign telling people that generics are ok and such. But the pharmaceutical industry is one of the biggest industries in the world, they make huge profit.
I know there are still good doctors but its a growing trend to see dangerous drugs thrown at patient nonstop..
I don’t see what lack of logic you are talking about, my argument makes perfect sense and its well justified.
The views of medical professionals are clearly not balanced or free of bias. Weed does not kill people, is less dangerous than most legal drugs and there is no reason for it to be singled out like it is.
If there was justification in making weed illegal then 90% of pharmaceuticals, alcohol, smoking, fast food etc would all be illegal.
What is not credible about my argument?
Marijuana is used as a medical treatment by medical professionals every day around the world. It has mutable medical uses and is less dangerous than most legal drugs.
There would be thousands of medical professionals who agree with me.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jan 31st, 2012 at 4:18pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 3:58pm:
Weed does not kill people...l.


There have been plenty of people killed in car accidents as a result of driving (for example) under the influence of cannabis. It slows the reaction time and makes you less likely to react to hazards apart from anything else.

Apart from indirect deaths, cannabis use during pregnancy increases the risk of premature delivery and low birth rates. That in itself has led to more infant deaths, because these are factors that influence infant mortality.


Quote:
The views of medical professionals are clearly not balanced or free of bias.


The views of dentists are clearly not totally balanced or free of bias either, but if you have a tooth problem, I think you'd prefer to go to somebody who was trained as a dentist rather than a carpenter.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Jan 31st, 2012 at 4:24pm
Lots of innocent people die on the roads, so

lets BAN CARS.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jan 31st, 2012 at 4:31pm

muso wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 4:18pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 3:58pm:
Weed does not kill people...l.


There have been plenty of people killed in car accidents as a result of driving (for example) under the influence of cannabis. It slows the reaction time and makes you less likely to react to hazards apart from anything else.


Quote:
The views of medical professionals are clearly not balanced or free of bias.


The views of dentists are clearly not totally balanced or free of bias either, but if you have a tooth problem, I think you'd prefer to go to somebody who was trained as a dentist rather than a carpenter.

HAHAHA just ignore my whole argument because you aint got one

Your car accident argument is not valid. You cant restrict someones freedoms for a crime they havent commited.. Plenty of people take prescription medicine and die driving because it slows their reaction time but your telling me thats ok because it says 'dont operate heavy machinery' on the bottle right?

There would be millions of medical professionals around the world who agree with me.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jan 31st, 2012 at 4:40pm

Emma wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 4:24pm:
Lots of innocent people die on the roads, so

lets BAN CARS.

I think we should make being a medical professional illegal seeing as how many people die from incorrect diagnoses, mistreatment, fatal operations etc..

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jan 31st, 2012 at 5:01pm

Emma wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 4:24pm:
Lots of innocent people die on the roads, so

lets BAN CARS.



Jalane,  You have a totally different approach to nuclear power. It has very substantial benefits, not the least of which is the fact that it doesn't have a significant carbon footprint.

- and yet anti-nuclear activists apply very dodgy statistics to argue that a very small proportion of a very large and variable number of cancer deaths are attributable to nuclear accidents.

Exposure to radiation can cause cancer.  The use of cosmetics and hair dyes also cause cancer, and to a far greater extent. Not only that, but you don't have to use dodgy statistics to prove it.

So what are you going to do? ban hair colours and cosmetics? Ban antiperspirants?

As you can see, your attitude is not based on absolute risk, and it's skewed according to your own preconceptions. 

- but of course we all have our own perception on what is acceptable risk, which doesn't necessarily reflect actual risk. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jan 31st, 2012 at 5:11pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 4:31pm:

muso wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 4:18pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 3:58pm:
Weed does not kill people...l.


There have been plenty of people killed in car accidents as a result of driving (for example) under the influence of cannabis. It slows the reaction time and makes you less likely to react to hazards apart from anything else.


Quote:
The views of medical professionals are clearly not balanced or free of bias.


The views of dentists are clearly not totally balanced or free of bias either, but if you have a tooth problem, I think you'd prefer to go to somebody who was trained as a dentist rather than a carpenter.

HAHAHA just ignore my whole argument because you aint got one

Your car accident argument is not valid. You cant restrict someones freedoms for a crime they havent commited.. Plenty of people take prescription medicine and die driving because it slows their reaction time but your telling me thats ok because it says 'dont operate heavy machinery' on the bottle right?

There would be millions of medical professionals around the world who agree with me.


No I'm not. I agree that benzodiazepene is a greater risk (about 10 times the direct mortality rate and and about 20 times when it comes to indirect mortality such as vehicle accidents, especially when it's not taken under medical supervision, but of course if you look into it, overdosing on sleeping pills is a popular means of suicide.   

Do I think it's ok for people to die as a result of abuse of one particular drug as opposed to another? No.

Your argument is the same one used by the Muslims on this forum (not that I have anything against Muslims) The argument is made against Muslim terrorists, and instead of  agreeing that it's bad, they talk about Christians committing offenses too - as if that somehow makes it ok.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and they certainly don't make a good argument either.


Quote:
I think we should make being a medical professional illegal seeing as how many people die from incorrect diagnoses, mistreatment, fatal operations etc..


I hope that's a joke. If you are honestly suggesting that ceasing medical treatment will reduce the death rate, then I'd have to ask what you've been smoking.   ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jan 31st, 2012 at 5:25pm

muso wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 5:11pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 4:31pm:

muso wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 4:18pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 3:58pm:
Weed does not kill people...l.


There have been plenty of people killed in car accidents as a result of driving (for example) under the influence of cannabis. It slows the reaction time and makes you less likely to react to hazards apart from anything else.


Quote:
The views of medical professionals are clearly not balanced or free of bias.


The views of dentists are clearly not totally balanced or free of bias either, but if you have a tooth problem, I think you'd prefer to go to somebody who was trained as a dentist rather than a carpenter.

HAHAHA just ignore my whole argument because you aint got one

Your car accident argument is not valid. You cant restrict someones freedoms for a crime they havent commited.. Plenty of people take prescription medicine and die driving because it slows their reaction time but your telling me thats ok because it says 'dont operate heavy machinery' on the bottle right?

There would be millions of medical professionals around the world who agree with me.


No I'm not. I agree that benzodiazepene is a greater risk (about 10 times the direct mortality rate and and about 20 times when it comes to indirect mortality such as vehicle accidents, especially when it's not taken under medical supervision, but of course if you look into it, overdosing on sleeping pills is a popular means of suicide.   

Do I think it's ok for people to die as a result of abuse of one particular drug as opposed to another? No.

Your argument is the same one used by the Muslims on this forum (not that I have anything against Muslims) The argument is made against Muslim terrorists, and instead of  agreeing that it's bad, they talk about Christians committing offenses too - as if that somehow makes it ok.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and they certainly don't make a good argument either.

[quote] I think we should make being a medical professional illegal seeing as how many people die from incorrect diagnoses, mistreatment, fatal operations etc..


If you are honestly suggesting that ceasing medical treatment will reduce the death rate, then I have to ask what you've been smoking.   ;D[/quote]
Then if you have no quarrel with those drugs being legal what is wrong with pot? If you agree they are more dangerous then why do you worry so much about pot? Pot can come with an instruction manual and warning label too if that’s all it takes.
I don’t really know the context of him saying that but I can understand if it was in the typical ‘ban Muslims’ argument. As I have said before I do not claim weed to be perfect (although its pretty darn close) but if all these other drugs are legal then there is simply no reason to ban marijuana.
Obviously I don’t actually want to ban medical professionals but that is where your logic goes. There’s no limit to the madness when we let opinion become law. At the end of the day 99% of the world could be against weed and that doesn’t give them any right to stop the 1% from using it because it should be your right to choose what you do to your body. Just as you would not want someone to ban you from drinking coffee or whatever floats your boat.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jan 31st, 2012 at 5:41pm
For what it's worth, I agree that Marijuana is on the lower scale when it comes to harm, and I certainly do have quarrels with over prescription of benzodiazepine.  If anything, I think that drug is a far bigger problem than cannabis, and it should be controlled much tighter. Of course, as I said before, it's a drug of opportunity for suicides, so the stats are going to be weighted against it.   

If tobacco had never been legal and the process of making it legal was just starting today, it wouldn't stand a snowflake's chance in hell of getting through the TGA, but it has been legal for hundreds of years. It's a legacy issue. So with marijuana it's a legacy issue of the opposite kind. If it is to be made legal, it has to do so on its own merits, not on the basis of comparison with the legal status of tobacco or alcohol or some other drug.

Personally I'd like to see smokers pay a higher Medicare levy. It's only fair.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by mozzaok on Jan 31st, 2012 at 8:19pm

Quote:
Personally I'd like to see smokers pay a higher Medicare levy. It's only fair.
-muso

Don't you think the 300% tax that smokers pay covers them already?
If you consider that 15 of every 20 they spend is going to the government, wouldn't that be more than covering the costs they add to the health budget?
Keep in mind that they should die younger, so be lesslikely to be a long term drain on social security as well. ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Jan 31st, 2012 at 9:45pm
Decriminalising pot without decriminalising the other drugs is absolutely pointless.


Quote:
If tobacco had never been legal and the process of making it legal was just starting today,


And neither would cars for private use, the motorcycle, the jet ski, the ladder, alcohol, nail guns, angle grinders, sashimi, home swimming pools, candles etc etc etc

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Jan 31st, 2012 at 10:09pm

muso wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 5:01pm:

Emma wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 4:24pm:
Lots of innocent people die on the roads, so

lets BAN CARS.



Jalane,  You have a totally different approach to nuclear power. It has very substantial benefits, not the least of which is the fact that it doesn't have a significant carbon footprint.

- and yet anti-nuclear activists apply very dodgy statistics to argue that a very small proportion of a very large and variable number of cancer deaths are attributable to nuclear accidents.

Exposure to radiation can cause cancer.  The use of cosmetics and hair dyes also cause cancer, and to a far greater extent. Not only that, but you don't have to use dodgy statistics to prove it.

So what are you going to do? ban hair colours and cosmetics? Ban antiperspirants?

As you can see, your attitude is not based on absolute risk, and it's skewed according to your own preconceptions. 

- but of course we all have our own perception on what is acceptable risk, which doesn't necessarily reflect actual risk. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.



Ahem ..... ;D :) :) ;)  I was KIDDING!!

[quote author=31343B38023A32382E0232335D0 link=1294031311/490#490 date=1328010300]Decriminalising pot without decriminalising the other drugs is absolutely pointless.[quote]

Not at all....   altho I agree the same principles apply.

AT LEAST its a start. Think of all the freed-up police assets,  and Court processes.etc etc etc

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by GoddyofOz on Feb 1st, 2012 at 1:55am

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 9:45pm:
Decriminalising pot without decriminalising the other drugs is absolutely pointless.


That makes absolutely no sense. Tobacco and Alcohol are considered drugs and they're legal as opposed to the rest. How is Marijuana not eligible for the exact same exception to the rule?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:19am
I hope Muso that you caught 'The Drum' on ABC1.31-01-2012.

They were discussing the recent publishing of the results of an international think-tank on Pot and Prohibition. Can't tell you the name, but its been raised in many recent news programs.
The verdict is in,  once again.
Maybe this time pollies will listen. 8-) :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:15pm

mozzaok wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 8:19pm:

Quote:
Personally I'd like to see smokers pay a higher Medicare levy. It's only fair.
-muso

Don't you think the 300% tax that smokers pay covers them already?
If you consider that 15 of every 20 they spend is going to the government, wouldn't that be more than covering the costs they add to the health budget?
Keep in mind that they should die younger, so be lesslikely to be a long term drain on social security as well. ;)



You've been listening to the Czech  Prime Minister. By the way, the Czech Republic is also a safe haven for bong heads. You can smoke anything with impunity over there.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by The honky tonk man on Feb 4th, 2012 at 10:18am

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 1:55am:

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 9:45pm:
Decriminalising pot without decriminalising the other drugs is absolutely pointless.


That makes absolutely no sense. Tobacco and Alcohol are considered drugs and they're legal as opposed to the rest. How is Marijuana not eligible for the exact same exception to the rule?



Perhpas the manufacture/refinement of drugs, rather than their possession should be the illegal bit.  You smoke weed straight off the tree without doing anything to it, so it's legal.  You could chew coca leaves, or smoke opium, but if you refine them into cocaine or heroin, that's when you get in trouble.  Of course, this would keep meth and its variants illegal as they are wholly synthesised, so good all round.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Feb 5th, 2012 at 11:19am

Emma wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:19am:
I hope Muso that you caught 'The Drum' on ABC1.31-01-2012.

They were discussing the recent publishing of the results of an international think-tank on Pot and Prohibition. Can't tell you the name, but its been raised in many recent news programs.
The verdict is in,  once again.
Maybe this time pollies will listen. 8-) :)


It's not a subject that interests me much, except from a professional point of view. (some of my reports carry out occupational drug testing)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Feb 5th, 2012 at 12:05pm

muso wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 11:19am:

Emma wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:19am:
I hope Muso that you caught 'The Drum' on ABC1.31-01-2012.

They were discussing the recent publishing of the results of an international think-tank on Pot and Prohibition. Can't tell you the name, but its been raised in many recent news programs.
The verdict is in,  once again.
Maybe this time pollies will listen. 8-) :)


It's not a subject that interests me much, except from a professional point of view. (some of my reports carry out occupational drug testing)


I saw that episode of The Drum. It was the young uber conservative guy talking about it and apparently he attended it along with several cops and health professionals. From what he said, their (and his) conclusions were that the so called "war on drugs" is lost and long ago became counter productive and that now they need to find a way of sending the message to the public that decriminalisation of ALL drugs doesn't mean that the consumption of drugs is perfectly ok.

The argument that somehow pot should be decriminalised (legalisation is neither possible or practical) over all the other substances because it's "natural" is nothing but pure nonsense.

You decriminalise one, you decriminalise them all. Otherwise you are achieving nothing.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:25am

Life_goes_on wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 12:05pm:
The argument that somehow pot should be decriminalised (legalisation is neither possible or practical) over all the other substances because it's "natural" is nothing but pure nonsense.


I agree. The use of the word "natural" in everything from advocacy to advertising is one these bugbears that annoys the hell out of me. Hemlock is a 100% pure natural ingredient too.  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Feb 18th, 2012 at 2:04am

muso wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Life_goes_on wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 12:05pm:
The argument that somehow pot should be decriminalised (legalisation is neither possible or practical) over all the other substances because it's "natural" is nothing but pure nonsense.


I agree. The use of the word "natural" in everything from advocacy to advertising is one these bugbears that annoys the hell out of me. Hemlock is a 100% pure natural ingredient too.  ;D



Life - goes-on   -    what you're saying is pure nonsense. I know of NO argument based on the fact that Pot grows from the earth, unadulterated , AND SO SHOULD BE LEGALISED>!!
waht a load of BS.  And bloody-minded at that.!!

yeah yeah Muso - we know 'natural' doesn't equal safe. I know you have a big problem with that s'posed mindset.  But that is such crap.  Only morons think that.
You happily assign subhuman intelligence because 'someone ' said 'somewhere' that natural is better, but give us a break.
We've heard this from you countless times ....  we know WOW hemlock is poison, or even certain mushrooms , or   lead, or ....there are countless natural substances hazardous to humans.

Pot isn't one of them.!! Or at least,' let me just say this '( K Rudd) it's actual import is far out weighed by it's demonised aspect.!!

SUCK THAT. :( 
its just too too sad.!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by life_goes_on on Feb 18th, 2012 at 8:59am

Quote:
Life - goes-on   -    what you're saying is pure nonsense. I know of NO argument based on the fact that Pot grows from the earth, unadulterated , AND SO SHOULD BE LEGALISED>!!
waht a load of BS.  And bloody-minded at that.!!


That argument has been used time and time again on here in relation to the legalisation of pot.
For example (and only a couple of posts previously):


Quote:
Perhpas the manufacture/refinement of drugs, rather than their possession should be the illegal bit.  You smoke weed straight off the tree without doing anything to it, so it's legal.  You could chew coca leaves, or smoke opium, but if you refine them into cocaine or heroin, that's when you get in trouble.  Of course, this would keep meth and its variants illegal as they are wholly synthesised, so good all round.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by GoddyofOz on Feb 18th, 2012 at 6:47pm

muso wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Life_goes_on wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 12:05pm:
The argument that somehow pot should be decriminalised (legalisation is neither possible or practical) over all the other substances because it's "natural" is nothing but pure nonsense.


I agree. The use of the word "natural" in everything from advocacy to advertising is one these bugbears that annoys the hell out of me. Hemlock is a 100% pure natural ingredient too.  ;D


It grows out of the ground, therefore it is natural. Get over yourself.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Feb 18th, 2012 at 9:29pm

... wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 10:18am:

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 1:55am:

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 9:45pm:
Decriminalising pot without decriminalising the other drugs is absolutely pointless.


That makes absolutely no sense. Tobacco and Alcohol are considered drugs and they're legal as opposed to the rest. How is Marijuana not eligible for the exact same exception to the rule?



Perhpas the manufacture/refinement of drugs, rather than their possession should be the illegal bit.  You smoke weed straight off the tree without doing anything to it, so it's legal.  You could chew coca leaves, or smoke opium, but if you refine them into cocaine or heroin, that's when you get in trouble.  Of course, this would keep meth and its variants illegal as they are wholly synthesised, so good all round.


Well actually I agree with this one.  It is quite a reasonable idea for monitoring, and focussing law enforcement where it might do some good.!!!
Thats not happening now.!! And the whole issue of legal/illegal drugs really needs to be looked at much more rationally. For the GOOD of ALL. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 10:58pm
What's that smell when I came into this board? - and why are my eyes watering? What's causing the haze?

What have you people been smoking while I was away? ;D

Hmmm Let me think about how to stir you up some more..........


Quote:
yeah yeah Muso - we know 'natural' doesn't equal safe. I know you have a big problem with that s'posed mindset.  But that is such crap.  Only morons think that.


Somebody? somebody? Just Google "100% Natural" and see. It's a commonly used advertising tactic, so a lot of people must fall for it. Of course none of you lot would ........   8-)

- and nobody extolling the virtues of pot would ever stoop to such a thing 8-)
http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/

Can somebody tell me the title of that site? I just picked one at random.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 11:17pm
Been somewhere nice I hope.!

Far as I can see nothing has changed.
Tell me more. :) ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Mar 6th, 2012 at 1:07am

muso wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 10:58pm:
What's that smell when I came into this board? - and why are my eyes watering? What's causing the haze?

What have you people been smoking while I was away? ;D

Hmmm Let me think about how to stir you up some more..........


Quote:
yeah yeah Muso - we know 'natural' doesn't equal safe. I know you have a big problem with that s'posed mindset.  But that is such crap.  Only morons think that.


Somebody? somebody? Just Google "100% Natural" and see. It's a commonly used advertising tactic, so a lot of people must fall for it. Of course none of you lot would ........   8-)

- and nobody extolling the virtues of pot would ever stoop to such a thing 8-)
http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/

Can somebody tell me the title of that site? I just picked one at random.

..well, even arsenic is a legal product in limited dosage.

I don't think that anybody is "extolling" an overall virtue from pot usage, however, it's pretty much been ascertained that pot cannot be attributed to be a higher causation of dysfunctional behaviour or health issue than that of a multitude of legal products out there on the free market today.

It's not just the lesser of two evils, it's the lesser of 1000 evils.
So go ahead Muso, promote your 999 evils. Hope you make a good buck out of it you sly devil you  ;D






Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Mar 6th, 2012 at 1:23am
ah Amadd - I agree with you.
Muso - you should probably widn your mind.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Mar 6th, 2012 at 4:10pm

Amadd wrote on Mar 6th, 2012 at 1:07am:
It's not just the lesser of two evils, it's the lesser of 1000 evils.
So go ahead Muso, promote your 999 evils. Hope you make a good buck out of it you sly devil you  ;D


I just come here to stir.  ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Mar 7th, 2012 at 12:50am

muso wrote on Mar 6th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Amadd wrote on Mar 6th, 2012 at 1:07am:
It's not just the lesser of two evils, it's the lesser of 1000 evils.
So go ahead Muso, promote your 999 evils. Hope you make a good buck out of it you sly devil you  ;D


I just come here to stir.  ;)


Then you should use a more hardy spoon  :P

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Mar 7th, 2012 at 1:43am
mmm... or get a lackey to stir for you.!! :) ;)
Only kidding Muso....  just ..your stirring could be more ummm ..vigorous.!! :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by skippy. on Mar 8th, 2012 at 11:56am

... wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 10:18am:

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 1:55am:

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 9:45pm:
Decriminalising pot without decriminalising the other drugs is absolutely pointless.


That makes absolutely no sense. Tobacco and Alcohol are considered drugs and they're legal as opposed to the rest. How is Marijuana not eligible for the exact same exception to the rule?



Perhpas the manufacture/refinement of drugs, rather than their possession should be the illegal bit.  You smoke weed straight off the tree without doing anything to it, so it's legal.  You could chew coca leaves, or smoke opium, but if you refine them into cocaine or heroin, that's when you get in trouble.  Of course, this would keep meth and its variants illegal as they are wholly synthesised, so good all round.

Hash too on that scenario.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Mar 8th, 2012 at 9:43pm
not necessarily.

hashish is still a 'natural' product, albeit concentrated in form.
Opium also  ... so no - hashish is not synthesised.IMHO :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Mar 8th, 2012 at 10:29pm

Emma wrote on Mar 8th, 2012 at 9:43pm:
not necessarily.

hashish is still a 'natural' product, albeit concentrated in form.
Opium also  ... so no - hashish is not synthesised.IMHO :)


No hash is not synthesized at all. It is crudely harvested by running naked through marijuana bushes and scraping off the residue.
Anytime I grow a plant these days, I turn it into "bubble hash" by mixing all of the plant into buckets of ice, which knocks off the part of the plant that I want to keep, ie: hashish.

No need to be trimming buds etc., just chuck the entire plant in and use some elbow grease and "Hey Presto", you have your product in a very compact, curable, storable and concentrated form. Too easy  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Mar 8th, 2012 at 11:31pm

Emma wrote on Mar 8th, 2012 at 9:43pm:
not necessarily.

hashish is still a 'natural' product, albeit concentrated in form.
Opium also  ... so no - hashish is not synthesised.IMHO :)


Atoms are natural products. The elements heavier than lithium, some of which consititute the essential elements of life come from star dust from supernovas.

We all come from star dust. Every chemical on this earth is made up of natural elements from star dust. Sythesised chemicals are made up of naturally occurring elements.

What substance could you define as not being natural? There are a few.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Mar 8th, 2012 at 11:49pm

Amadd wrote on Mar 8th, 2012 at 10:29pm:

Emma wrote on Mar 8th, 2012 at 9:43pm:
not necessarily.

hashish is still a 'natural' product, albeit concentrated in form.
Opium also  ... so no - hashish is not synthesised.IMHO :)


No hash is not synthesized at all. It is crudely harvested by running naked through marijuana bushes and scraping off the residue.
Anytime I grow a plant these days, I turn it into "bubble hash" by mixing all of the plant into buckets of ice, which knocks off the part of the plant that I want to keep, ie: hashish.

No need to be trimming buds etc., just chuck the entire plant in and use some elbow grease and "Hey Presto", you have your product in a very compact, curable, storable and concentrated form. Too easy  ;D

Hey that sounds pretty good.!

It is crudely harvested by running naked through marijuana bushes and scraping off the residue.-Amadd  :)
Nah  ;)  i mean... I knew someone who made hashish in Pakistan for the Paki Army.  The soldiers  got substantial pay in the form of hashish...... and I gather the workers hung the primo buds, wiped their forearms up and down once, scraped off the resinous residue from their skin with a knife,  and that was No 1  grade. !!  ::)

And the workers were happy, they were paid in kind too.!!
Must add this was more than 30 yrs ago. Who knows? maybe times have changed.? ;D

your method certainly sounds different. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Mar 15th, 2012 at 12:53am
Have you thought of giving it a go yet Jalane?
Just type in "bubble hash" to youtube and you'll get the picci.
It's quite easy and you don't need to filter so stringently.

You'll agree that it's really good sh!t.  ;D







Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Baronvonrort on Mar 15th, 2012 at 12:46pm

Amadd wrote on Mar 8th, 2012 at 10:29pm:

Emma wrote on Mar 8th, 2012 at 9:43pm:
not necessarily.

hashish is still a 'natural' product, albeit concentrated in form.
Opium also  ... so no - hashish is not synthesised.IMHO :)


No hash is not synthesized at all. It is crudely harvested by running naked through marijuana bushes and scraping off the residue.
Anytime I grow a plant these days, I turn it into "bubble hash" by mixing all of the plant into buckets of ice, which knocks off the part of the plant that I want to keep, ie: hashish.

No need to be trimming buds etc., just chuck the entire plant in and use some elbow grease and "Hey Presto", you have your product in a very compact, curable, storable and concentrated form. Too easy  ;D


There are a few ways of making hashish.

I wonder how long it takes to get a thousand kilos by running through a crop...lmao at this idiocy.

THC is not water soluble so putting your pot in a pot of boiling water will extract a lot of the water soluble poo while leaving the THC in the vegetable matter so this is one way to increase the potency of your pot.

Grinding all your pot up ,including the stems and leaf then soaking it in alcohol  is considered a solvent method of extracting the THC.
The alcohol is then "boiled off" leaving you with hash oil that can be further purified by using ether.
This method allows you to use waste leaf and stem which contain very small amounts of THC to make high quality hash oil.

Once you have hash oil it is easy to make into high quality hash.

Commercial hashmaking will use the solvent method,compare the labour required for that compared to sticking your arms out and running through a crop like a kid pretending to be an aeroplane.

There is simple chemistry involved with making high quality hash in commercial quantities.

There is a book titled "The art of modern hashmaking" which goes through the process of solvent extraction, search for it with google.




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by The honky tonk man on Mar 15th, 2012 at 2:08pm
JUST chuck your junk weed in a conatiner, punch some drainage holes in the bottom and spray a can or 3 of butane through it.  Wait for it all to run through into a tray or bowl placed underneath, evaporate the butane and voila!  hash oil in 5 easy minutes.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Mar 15th, 2012 at 4:43pm
hey -  this is interesting.!!! 
Any more.??? :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:00pm
quote]

Atoms are natural products. The elements heavier than lithium, some of which consititute the essential elements of life come from star dust from supernovas.

We all come from star dust. Every chemical on this earth is made up of natural elements from star dust. Sythesised chemicals are made up of naturally occurring elements.

What substance could you define as not being natural? There are a few. [/quote]MUSO

I must admit, it's an interesting question.

Especially when you are restricted to things which exclude entirely synthesised products in a Lab somewhere!. :-?

It would seem, like so many other things, to depend on the initial accepted definition of 'something not being natural'   or could we perhaps say unnatural?

Your definition doesn't seem to comply with the dictionary .. I'll check a couple more, but I'd suggest your argument is your own...

Now I would think unnatural would be something which could not occur in the normal scope of existence,   ---- like  "Dolly "   the cloned sheep.  But your definition would presumably exclude such things,  including the mouse with the ear growing out of it's back.

NOW THAT - is unnatural. !!!  :(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Mar 23rd, 2012 at 11:58pm
They say that you can get a high out of poppies that you grow in your garden.
Although the say that they are sterilized, I got a heap of poppies to grow just from supermarket poppy seeds.
I only got a "one time" high from what I produced, but it was pretty nice and well worth the tiny effort of throwing them around and seeing where they will grow  :)

Although opium can be very addictive, I understand that it's not very likely that you will become addicted to what you can grow in your garden by the time your gardening season has finished.
Modern science can change that scenerio, so I'd suggest that you appreciate it for the experience that mother nature intended and not as a crutch like capitalist society has intended.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Mar 24th, 2012 at 12:22am
I'd suggest that you appreciate it for the experience that mother nature intended and not as a crutch like capitalist society has intended.Amadd

Couldn't agree more old chap.  Sigh...but it's a sad world, isn't it?. 's why I prefer to live as far 'outside' of society as poss,.... whilst living amongst it all.  :-?
My pioneering days are behind me, I suspect, because it's getting harder and harder to live a singular, private life.  I'm doing pretty darn well so far. :)

Participating in this Forum is definitely against my 'ideal'.
  Guess I just love a bit of argy-bargy. :)
.. a bit of verbose biffo. ;D


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Mar 24th, 2012 at 12:29am

Amadd wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 12:53am:
Have you thought of giving it a go yet Jalane?Just type in "bubble hash" to youtube and you'll get the picci.
It's quite easy and you don't need to filter so stringently.

You'll agree that it's really good sh!t.  ;D

Well yes  I have thought of it ..for  sure for sure...  but haven't gotten around to it - yet.

Been a bit busy with other stuff last few weeks.... it never ends..but certainly the idea has taken up residence.  It'll percolate for a while yet I suspect. Gotta 'feel' right.   But -  yeah - lookin' fwd.. :) ;)  - I swear I'll advise ... just don't hold your breath.....
[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Apr 3rd, 2012 at 11:13pm
Well good people...  once again we hear the call.

LEGALISE is the word.!!!!!!!

The news has been full of the 'latest' report... the 'latest' recommendations on what to do about the DRUG PROBLEM>

FINGERS CROSSED people listen. THE MEDIA responses I've seen to date   - VERY MUCH FALL BACK TO THE OLD LINE. 

Not surprising I suppose... they always seek to maintain the status quo.  [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

WAKE UP.!!!!!!!!!
Society can ONLY IMPROVE.... so forget your fear laden base, bolstered by decades of conditioning, of propaganda,  .. of divide and conquer.!! It wasted too much life, time .....and money.
It doesn't work..... and WE ALL KNOW IT.
Lets move on. :) :)



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Apr 4th, 2012 at 12:25am
What?
No comments?

Oh my, we are a jaded bunch of blatherers aren't we?
Too st...ed to bother? Heard it all before.??

Me too.  But -  hope springs eternal. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 4th, 2012 at 8:31am


http://recipes.sparkpeople.com/recipe-detail.asp?recipe=202341

Quote:
Boerenkool Stamppot (Kale Hash)

This Dutch recipe is a traditional peasants dish served on cold winter nights. It's hearty and a delicious way to get your greens. In the Netherlands it is commonly served with applesauce and pickled baby onions. It is also tasty garnished with a small "pond" of brown gravy in the center of the vegetable mixture....


;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Apr 4th, 2012 at 6:50pm
ah yes  - Stamppot -  ::) amazing with special sauce.
- but a little gristly(grisly)  if underdone. Yum :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Apr 10th, 2012 at 6:58pm
Well, reading a Melbourne Newspaper. Seems legalisation of drugs is a popular choice with the public.

...mind you - tobacco funded the American War of Independence ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Apr 10th, 2012 at 9:37pm
err... yeah??  u say tobacco 'funded' the American War of Independence??

Hey I don't disagree...  there were many factors in that conflict,,, no doubt Scottish 'barons'  played a major role ....   

So are you saying this?? -  Legal drugs could FUND  an independent Australia.!!

Again, I don't disagree.  But most folk on this forum are obviously very scared of change...
guess we'll see what happens?? if anything.!! :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Apr 10th, 2012 at 10:29pm
more likely have a civil war before anything 'independent'.
Keeping the Union Jack on the Flag is more like us keeping 'them' prisoner ;)

I just think that when big changes happen - other big changes follow like a 'chain' reaction.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Apr 10th, 2012 at 10:46pm
talking about the flag- our Flag.....

Use the Eureka Stockade flag....  with an aboriginal symbol inplace of the Union Jack.

Which  one? 
I think i'd like the Horizon symbol, where the colours, and the vista in miniature , represent the sovereignty of the land.

If I was any good with computers I'd do a 'mock-up', but I'm not, so I won't.!! :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Apr 11th, 2012 at 2:40am
When did the Eureka Stockade flag ever acquire the union jack?

  :-?




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Apr 11th, 2012 at 4:26am
It did in a 'Union' sort of way,
but more like a 'Yankee' Union
...down here in the 'south' ;)

The designer of the 'Koori' (one tribe) Flag,
doesn't really like the idea of it being used for 'nationalism' and upon a 'new' Flag.

...also, why replace one 'political' minority
with another minority that in true essence
isn't 'political' but more 'land' orientated in their
existence as a people.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 11th, 2012 at 7:19am

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 6:58pm:
Well, reading a Melbourne Newspaper. Seems legalisation of drugs is a popular choice with the public.

...mind you - tobacco funded the American War of Independence ;)

Speaking of which, have you seen this?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10794909


Quote:
New Zealand should be phasing out tobacco, and cigarette exports should be banned not increased, a public health professor says.

His comments come as news that Imperial Tobacco's Petone Factory is quadrupling its exports to Australia.


The latest poll shows 64% of New Zealanders agree with him.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Apr 11th, 2012 at 7:03pm

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Apr 11th, 2012 at 4:26am:
It did in a 'Union' sort of way,
but more like a 'Yankee' Union
...down here in the 'south' ;)

The designer of the 'Koori' (one tribe) Flag,
doesn't really like the idea of it being used for 'nationalism' and upon a 'new' Flag.

...also, why replace one 'political' minority
with another minority that in true essence
isn't 'political' but more 'land' orientated in their
existence as a people.


Emma wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 10:46pm:
Posted by: Amadd   Posted on: Today at 2:40am
When did the Eureka Stockade flag ever acquire the union jack? 


Posted by: jalane   Posted on: Yesterday at 10:46pm
talking about the flag- our Flag.....

Use the Eureka Stockade flag....  with an aboriginal symbol inplace of the Union Jack.

Which  one? 
I think i'd like the Horizon symbol, where the colours, and the vista in miniature , represent the sovereignty of the land.



ANSWER ......Never.   NO  !!! I meant, if it was thought necessary to further 'identify' the NEW flag as AUS  - that symbol would be lovely. But, hey if its an issue ... in the place where the UNION JACK is NOW, which could be used as that visual additional identification - many symbols could be possible.


Thinking about it now - I think I like to see the silhouette of a "Woomera" against an ochre blank square.   or like that.! 
Jeez full of ideas me.!




now THAT was an exercise in cut and paste + quotes ,,good grief.!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Apr 11th, 2012 at 8:20pm
You'll be quite astounded when you do see the 'advanced' Flag in the not too distant future.
;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Apr 11th, 2012 at 10:10pm

muso wrote on Apr 11th, 2012 at 7:19am:

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 6:58pm:
Well, reading a Melbourne Newspaper. Seems legalisation of drugs is a popular choice with the public.

...mind you - tobacco funded the American War of Independence ;)

Speaking of which, have you seen this?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10794909


Quote:
New Zealand should be phasing out tobacco, and cigarette exports should be banned not increased, a public health professor says.

His comments come as news that Imperial Tobacco's Petone Factory is quadrupling its exports to Australia.


The latest poll shows 64% of New Zealanders agree with him.


Interesting.
My take on that - is restrict tobacco sales and legalise pot.  So old tobacco junkies can do their thing, but enabling a non-addictive substitute to be freely available.

Makes sense to me.! :) :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Apr 12th, 2012 at 11:00am

Emma wrote on Apr 11th, 2012 at 10:10pm:
Interesting.
My take on that - is restrict tobacco sales and legalise pot.  So old tobacco junkies can do their thing, but enabling a non-addictive substitute to be freely available.

Makes sense to me.! :) :)



Don't quote me on this, but I have this sneaking suspicion that the said public health professor has a different take on it.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Apr 12th, 2012 at 6:13pm
:)
I'd have to agree there Muso! ;D ;)

Still...things change. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Apr 14th, 2012 at 2:08am

muso wrote on Apr 12th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Emma wrote on Apr 11th, 2012 at 10:10pm:
Interesting.
My take on that - is restrict tobacco sales and legalise pot.  So old tobacco junkies can do their thing, but enabling a non-addictive substitute to be freely available.

Makes sense to me.! :) :)



Don't quote me on this, but I have this sneaking suspicion that the said public health professor has a different take on it.


I would doubt very much that the public health professor has any first hand knowledge of being a tobacco user vs. a pot user.

Facts and figures have never deciphered any real meaning...and that's why we have "democracy".

Democracy is to allow order to evolve from apparent disorder.
If you don't like it, then vote for a dictatorship.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Apr 14th, 2012 at 2:48am
this is deep Amadd.!!

"Facts and figures have never deciphered any real meaning...and that's why we have "democracy".

Democracy is to allow order to evolve from apparent disorder."

Yes indeed....  gotta hope it works...in the end. :)

Meantime, Democracy  is people, so its up to us to see a better life and future.
Life ...today.... gives us plenty of chaos.  Indeed - such is the state of the world, whether we , all mighty all powerful humans ::) realise it or NOT.!

Seems we're subject to the old Chinese curse...!!!

"May you live in interesting times."
:)



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Apr 14th, 2012 at 3:16am
Maybe it's deep? Maybe it's just logical that everybody cannot experience the same.

Democracy is about the culmination of all experiences, which should bring about a better judgement on the whole.

Hearsay is not experience, and should not be treated as such in an open and honest democracy...I reckon.




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Apr 14th, 2012 at 3:41am
No ,truly everyone cannot 'experience' everything.

Sooner or later it comes down to trust and hope that good will prevails.

Haven't seen much of that.!! But I keep looking.!! :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Apr 14th, 2012 at 4:15am
Yes we trust in something.
Be it the facts and figures before our eyes, be it the (Hearsay) God that they say exists, or be it the experience which is personally known.

It is always our right to choose, and we will uphold that right I hope for our one single vote.

Wherever your one single vote goes, don't be afraid to believe in it, because it is valuable.
So no need to keep looking Jalane, 'cause you already know it  :)





Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Apr 15th, 2012 at 6:34pm
Well said the pair of you. :) :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Jul 11th, 2012 at 10:57pm
Well well surprise surprise NOT.

A whole jail in Vic - Barwon- run by drug crims, both cops and cons.  No surprise at all.

IF you are surprised... you are in blind denial.

ONE of the most important reasons that illegal drugs policy should be trashed and burned... is the absolute opportunity the law provides for corruption in our police and legal systems.
ITS A NO-BRAINER.!!!!!!

IT IS RIFE in all state police forces.  Deny it, and live life in a haze of ignorance.
Thats what you want.  No see evil, no hear evil, no speak evil.

AND it IS  EVIL that the powers that be retain this state of corruption because there are somebody(s)  who are clearly just rolling in the money.

You couldn't design a system with more potential for corruption.!!!

OOh OOOh -- but its wrong to condone drugs.!!!  what about our children???

Well fools, its your kids that are paying for your fkwt views.  You suffer,  BUT your children suffer more... at the hands of criminals,,, and sadly POLICE. !!!
>:(


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Jul 11th, 2012 at 11:01pm
OK OK police aren't prison officers.  But have to say.... if a strictly regulated (supposedly) system such as a prison, is oh so vulnerable,  HOW MUCH MORE SO the Police service. 

Humans are fallible... and money buys a lot.  Drugs =Money financing crims= crims financing cops et al.

Disaster-----   but so accepted by our society.  WHY??

WHY????
:(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Jul 13th, 2012 at 12:10am
I suppose sometimes you need to play within the rules which are governed by a tighter circle, and those that you are most likely to need to answer to, before, and for more grave consequences than the wider rule.

We live in an expectation that one shoe fits all. Most of us know that this is rarely the case, yet there seems to be a never ending quest to have us all governed by one particular set of rules...ie: religions.

I've heard people (mostly authorities) say for years upon years that "Ours is not perfect, but it's the best that we can do".
So if it was the best back then, is it any better now?

We are now subject to a totally different "Zeitgeist" than we were 20 yrs ago.
Have we gained appreciation for the sacrifices of freedom, or do we feel a little duped?

I'd like to say yes it's ok for cops (or prison officers) to use their judgement in particular circumstances, but they will invariably say "NO" to me and disrespect my ability to make judgement calls.

Those prison officers should be lumped in with the rest of them.









Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by jalane on Sep 9th, 2012 at 8:43pm
and here we are again..............

IT IS NOW today, according to the 'News'..... RECOMMENDED..!! 

:) :) :) ::) :-? :-? :-?

WILL the stupid pollies listen THIS TIME.????

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by God on Sep 15th, 2012 at 9:40am

Amadd wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 4:15am:
Yes we trust in something.
Be it the facts and figures before our eyes, be it the (Hearsay) God that they say exists, or be it the experience which is personally known.

It is always our right to choose, and we will uphold that right I hope for our one single vote.

Wherever your one single vote goes, don't be afraid to believe in it, because it is valuable.
So no need to keep looking Jalane, 'cause you already know it  :)

Yes, everyone has freedom of choice, and those whose judgement is not clouded, know what is right. The remainder believe that they know what is right.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Sep 15th, 2012 at 8:32pm
No...evryone doesn't have the freedom of choice.  That's my point.!! :-?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Sep 15th, 2012 at 10:15pm
So you don't smoke marijuana because you don't have freedom of choice?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Sep 15th, 2012 at 10:27pm
What I mean is ....there is no freedom....  sure, there is choice.....  but it doesn't come free.

Quite the opposite.

:) 'Freedom' surely means the ability and right to choose, without fear of retribution, ?? 

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Sep 15th, 2012 at 11:07pm

Emma wrote on Sep 15th, 2012 at 10:27pm:
What I mean is ....there is no freedom....  sure, there is choice.....  but it doesn't come free.

Quite the opposite.

:) 'Freedom' surely means the ability and right to choose, without fear of retribution, ?? 


That's an interesting one. I would have thought that all choices have their consequences - retributions or otherwise. Freedom to choose with no consequences sounds... well  "not of this world".  One man's freedom is another man's accountability. We're all like Coleridge's Ancient Mariner - free to shoot the albatross, but we always need to be prepared to wear the consequences.

What do you reckon, God?  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Sep 15th, 2012 at 11:40pm

muso wrote on Sep 15th, 2012 at 11:07pm:

Emma wrote on Sep 15th, 2012 at 10:27pm:
What I mean is ....there is no freedom....  sure, there is choice.....  but it doesn't come free.

Quite the opposite.

:) 'Freedom' surely means the ability and right to choose, without fear of retribution, ?? 


That's an interesting one. I would have thought that all choices have their consequences - retributions or otherwise. Freedom to choose with no consequences sounds... well  "not of this world".  One man's freedom is another man's accountability. We're all like Coleridge's Ancient Mariner - free to shoot the albatross, but we always need to be prepared to wear the consequences.

What do you reckon, God?  ;D


I didn't say, without consequences.  All actions have their consequences.
And...this idea of responsibility for one's own actions is lost on too many of our young today.
AND ON OUR POLLIES.... Parliamentary privilege..... ??

None of us are really clear about the consequences of our actions...we cannot be...because we cannot divine the future.
Some things ARE obvious tho.  If you drink litres of Bundy, you might expect to end up in hospital with alcoholic poisoning.  If you smoke heavily you may expect to develop cancer, if you eat like a glutton you might expect obesity, heart disease and early death.
These are all choices which have consequences.

In this matter..we can currently expect 'retribution and punishment'...by our own people.
Not a policy designed to promote social cohesiveness.
What is the diff? I ask you.

Again...the current status quo represents a 'divide and conquer' policy......  but to who's benefit?. All of us are wearing the 'consequences'. :(





Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by God on Sep 18th, 2012 at 9:25pm
All actions have their consequences, but also responsibilities, ...........but then you'd prefer to leave any responsibilities submerged in a pea soup fog of euphoria.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Sep 18th, 2012 at 10:11pm
r u talking to me ?? G?

I refuse to call you God OK?
'...........but then you'd prefer to leave any responsibilities submerged in a pea soup fog of euphoria. '    Was this addressed to me G?

;D ;D ;D

a pea soup fog of euphoria.    ;)

Thats pretty good G....... not that you actually know of what you speak... but its catchy, even  if somewhat a mixed metaphor. :)And of course not applicable.


Pea Soup
Fog
Euphoria.
You must live somewhere cold. :)



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Amadd on Sep 20th, 2012 at 12:23am
Is a "Pea soup of euphoria" anything like ignorant bliss?

If so, we all probably need to reside there in some respects if we are to experience any bliss at all.

Apparently, even God resides there, as God is said to have been heard by some to say to others that we must all live by a certain set of morals, which was apparently dictated to by their belief in what their God would say if they actually were able to satisfy their need to hear it from the horse's mouth.






Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Sep 29th, 2012 at 9:41pm
You gotta hand it to SBS.

They do show the BEST most relevant and interesting programs.

Tonight we saw  about 'Prohibition'...Nation of Drunkards.

Sadly we still live in the type of society which thinks Humans can be regulated as seen fit by a majority.

Do hope there is a Pt 2.

MORE SADLY ... we seem to be dumber than the earlier lot, who realised pretty quickly, in the scheme of things', that it was a VERY BAD IDEA.

Save Me From the PEOPLE WHO"D SAVE ME FROM MY SINS.

It's so stupid... but ...it's STILL prohibited.

WE just never learn from the past. so are doomed to repeat the grossest of acts.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by magpie on Sep 29th, 2012 at 11:08pm
only in america - pre-criminalisation, weed was smoked by the poorer classes, negros and whites. but it was becoming more popular so the liquor lobby bribed/contributed to polly electoral funds (wink), got churches onside and got the campaign underway. the legislation, the propoganda, and of course the enforcement.
then they lumped grass with a list of various narcotics which were, (until that point considered a medical problem) and criminalised those as well. fast forward to england about early 1950's and 'the list' is a medical problem with a 'hard drug' usage about 20% of that of USA when they use the League of Nations I think it was, to push other countries to adopt their drug code (hegemony). england and others did adopt & guess what?  in 2 or 3 years the rate equalled that of the US.
The black market just loved the idea of having been given the trade, and to increase the growth pushed the stuff 'the list' as hard as they could.
look at mexico, afghanistan, etc ect. one cartel goes down two spring up. is it portugal? who has turned back the clock with its decriminalisation of marijuana, with some 3rd world countries looking at the progress.
churches and politicians are a bad mix.
I personally don't think that the drug attitude will change much. just my view.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Sep 29th, 2012 at 11:40pm
But as you say Magpie

The black market just loved the idea of having been given the trade....
and this is so blatantly obvious, I must wonder ...who's getting the cream???

churches and politicians are a bad mix.I personally don't think that the drug attitude will change much. just my view.

Why??
You agree then that all the anti - drug Laws are harmful to the society they (laughingly ;D) say they seek to protect.?

I personally don't think that the drug attitude will change much. just my view

You think that our lawmakers are incapable?

Incapable of rationality, due to the influence of the religious?

Well then..isn't that just another reason to disrespect all Law.

Where it's obvious that this 'Law' is wrong, but that .. something in our Governance cannot tolerate that idea, and that is the status quo, and so it will remain.?? .... regardless of the damage done...

what are the consequences.??

No respect for Law.
And we see it more and more everyday, in Hoons, in Ram Raids, in rioting, in children assaulting their schoolbus drivers.

What is so hard to understand..???
We.... as the adults the voters.. allow this to continue ....and it stinks.!
It deserves NO RESPECT. >:(
And consequently,  WE the faceless mass responsible, deserve no respect.

Its a SAD Human World. :( 



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Spot of Borg on Sep 30th, 2012 at 4:11am
Anti drug laws create lots more criminals to stick into the private jails and make more profit.

Humans seem to be drawn to drugs (including alcohol). Why? To escape from this unnatural existence?

SOB

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by gomtuu on Oct 1st, 2012 at 12:12am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 30th, 2012 at 4:11am:
Anti drug laws create lots more criminals to stick into the private jails and make more profit.

Humans seem to be drawn to drugs (including alcohol). Why? To escape from this unnatural existence?

SOB

yes, I think so.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by magpie on Oct 1st, 2012 at 3:25pm

Emma wrote on Sep 29th, 2012 at 11:40pm:
But as you say Magpie

The black market just loved the idea of having been given the trade....
and this is so blatantly obvious, I must wonder ...who's getting the cream???

churches and politicians are a bad mix.I personally don't think that the drug attitude will change much. just my view.

Why??
You agree then that all the anti - drug Laws are harmful to the society they (laughingly ;D) say they seek to protect.?

I personally don't think that the drug attitude will change much. just my view

You think that our lawmakers are incapable?

Incapable of rationality, due to the influence of the religious?

Well then..isn't that just another reason to disrespect all Law.

Where it's obvious that this 'Law' is wrong, but that .. something in our Governance cannot tolerate that idea, and that is the status quo, and so it will remain.?? .... regardless of the damage done...

what are the consequences.??

No respect for Law.
And we see it more and more everyday, in Hoons, in Ram Raids, in rioting, in children assaulting their schoolbus drivers.

What is so hard to understand..???
We.... as the adults the voters.. allow this to continue ....and it stinks.!
It deserves NO RESPECT. >:(
And consequently,  WE the faceless mass responsible, deserve no respect.

Its a SAD Human World. :( 

hi Emma Peel,

who's getting the cream/benefit from this enviornment? apart from the black market,  I can't
really see any material benefit flowing from it.

Like the NRA, pressure groups pull a lot of political weight especially religious groups
ie. Darwinism v. Creationism & how that has impacted on education and how that encourages faith
before rationality. so where you get a faith-based approach to 'a' problem any outcome
would be logically clouded. given the pressure groups tend to create alliances of interests,
(strength in numbers) they will push a 'party line' anti-drugs for example with all the
resources at their disposal, media, parlimentiary process, religious organisations etc. birth control is another
example including the use of condoms. so I think that the blocking power of these
groups to drug reform is so powerful that change is improbable. Their faith-based view is that they are protecting society.

Our law-makers, the politicians in our adversarial system, are interested in two things,
the pursuit of power and the maintenance of power, bring us back to pressure groups.
(Jim Cairns was an exception and I'm sure a few others). They are not incapable, rather, self-interested.

This failure of drug reform does not lead to disrespect all law, which as
you know is necessary for the regulation of societies, and encompasses international, national, state,
tribal and
religious law amongst others. and, 'bad' laws which cause destruction will remain as long as
ignorance does.

the consequences? you tell me, the batteries in my crystal ball are flat.

the examples of rowdy behaviour I believe is more of a reflection on our
social structure and lack of enforcement of laws, which lead to lack of accountability.

law enforcement is only a political issue at election and not a 'full term' issue.

On the respect issue, I would see this as being embodied  in the UN declaration of human  rights, and say that all people except trolls, deserve respect.

It seems sad if your team loses a match, then it IS sad.i

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2012 at 8:04pm
"Our law-makers, the politicians in our adversarial system, are interested in two things, the pursuit of power and the maintenance of power, bring us back to pressure groups. (Jim Cairns was an exception and I'm sure a few others). They are not incapable, rather, self-interested.

the examples of rowdy behaviour I believe is more of a reflection on our social structure and lack of enforcement of laws, which lead to lack of accountability. "

So you agree with me ,  but you didn't really need to re-phrase it slightly, and repeat it, Magpie.. :)

My hi-lites -- I'll expand...

not incapable (love double negatives myself ;))  ...........


rather,  self-interested....I've got to say that any pollie who puts self-interest first, IS  incapable.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by magpie on Oct 1st, 2012 at 8:31pm

Emma wrote on Oct 1st, 2012 at 8:04pm:
"Our law-makers, the politicians in our adversarial system, are interested in two things, the pursuit of power and the maintenance of power, bring us back to pressure groups. (Jim Cairns was an exception and I'm sure a few others). They are not incapable, rather, self-interested.

the examples of rowdy behaviour I believe is more of a reflection on our social structure and lack of enforcement of laws, which lead to lack of accountability. "

So you agree with me ,  but you didn't really need to re-phrase it slightly, and repeat it, Magpie.. :)

My hi-lites -- I'll expand...

not incapable (love double negatives myself ;))  ...........


rather,  self-interested....I've got to say that any pollie who puts self-interest first, IS  incapable.

thank you for that. I shall acknowledge your guidance when I write my book.
In the meantime, please guide this unworthy ppl (singular), on to the true path, the road to political utopia.
now, a gift for you. *hands Emma Peel a puffing fish*.. I am a much better person now that you have shewn me da light, glory be..

As I went down in the river to pray
Studying about that good old way
And who shall wear the starry crown,
Emma Peel, show me the way !
(gospel trad. adapted)

cricket umpires arm points to the heavens "six"!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2012 at 9:22pm
hee hee  ;D ;)

pleased I could help :)

I rate myself a 6  in cricket terms too.!!
Thanks  :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by RedRoses on Nov 7th, 2012 at 6:26pm
Simply impliment policy like the USA. Card holders only, for those with medical conditions.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Nov 7th, 2012 at 6:32pm

muso wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 7:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 4:10pm:

muso wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 1:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:

muso wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 7:43pm:
Keep it illegal.


I couldn't care less about someone puffing a bit of pot once a week on a Saturday night.
People who smoke it all the time worry me a bit.
I really think that hunting down potheads is
a bit like the witch hunts of the Middle Ages.


Hunt  down dealers. Ignore those who use small quantities for personal use (except for driving).  Otherwise, keep it illegal.
http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishing.nsf/content/marijuana


Muso - do those bad effects pertain to someone who has one puff of a pot cigarette
once every 3 months - or do they refer to someone who smokes very strong stuff
all day every day for years on end?
It all depends on the dosage surely?
There was no dosage data in that list of effects.
I expected more from you as my scientific friend on Ozpolitic.


I'm not an expert on Marijuana, but the links on that page may provide  answers to your questions.

It always depends on the dosage.


No Muso - there is nothing about dosage.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Citizen on Mar 8th, 2013 at 10:33am
prohibition does not work!

Proven time and time again that it only serves to fund organized crime, and corrupt officials.

It also forces a large percentage of people to be in direct contact with criminals on a regular basis, allowing pot to become the gateway to harder drugs and crime. 

The statics show that 5.5 million Australians over the age of 14 have used pot, with the law as it currently stands more than 25% of Australians are classified as criminals for this action.

I argue that any and all victimless crimes should be revoked as they are nothing short of our government impede on the freedoms of its people.

I don't smoke myself, just thought I would state that to avoid any negative stigma attached to the action, I just believe in FREEDOM.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Mar 8th, 2013 at 9:25pm
Prohibition does not work....

it just keeps a lot of crims and corrupt police and other law enforcement people in da money.  Creeps all of them....

not to mention all the people caught in the middle.. suffering. 

People seem blind to what is staring them in the face....  but you know its all about fear.... 
unreasonable irrational fear,,, on the part of the hood-winked public.
Made that way by the propaganda governments and OTHERS  have been spreading,,, for yrs....

to protect their own interests..


Citizen  you speak truth..   :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by God on Mar 11th, 2013 at 8:14pm

Quote:
Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies.
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly;
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes.


This thread is soooooo sloooow.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Mar 11th, 2013 at 8:25pm
perhaps  you know Cods .. that the Beatles...  state quite definitely that this has nothing to do with drugs.. and everything to do with a young daughters whimsey...  but yeah  ..it is a topic which is very important in our society...  its in the  THB   :) ;)
no not the THC...

the THB   Too Hard Basket... :-?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Mar 28th, 2013 at 8:10am
Prohibition worked for me

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Mar 28th, 2013 at 8:46pm
made  mucho hay while the sun shone eh? :-?


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Mar 30th, 2013 at 2:34pm
No, just never had contact with any drugs, never got involved.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Mar 30th, 2013 at 11:25pm
......
bump

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Mar 30th, 2013 at 11:26pm
so ... you have no real basis on which to comment do you??

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 10th, 2013 at 8:31pm
Well I avoided drugs while I was young and stupid.
But I have seen enough since to form an opinion.

First Prohibition does work for some.

I always want to ask the pro drug people where they would draw the line with prohibition.

Is it ok for 5 year olds to take drugs?

If you believe its not acceptable, then you actually do support some kind of prohibition.
Its just at what level prohibition should be enforced.

That would put us on the same side of the debate.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 10th, 2013 at 9:35pm
that's a bit silly don't you think?  Is 5 yrs old OK? 
Obviously not.  :(

But at least we have guidelines in place which shows the way.

That is ,  like alcohol...  not legally available to minors.  ::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 10th, 2013 at 10:40pm
So Emma, are we in a tiny bit of agreeance?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 10th, 2013 at 11:25pm
so Mickeytrees,.. are we??

Talking about children being proscribed.. ie not allowed to partake of ... numerous adult activities..?? 

Yes we agree..

Talking about prohibition of Pot ?? no we don't...  as you say it works, and I say it doesn't.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 11th, 2013 at 7:45am
I gave you one example of where it did work tho

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 11th, 2013 at 11:34pm
did you?? 

Oh  you mean yourself...  one example of Prohibition working.

But,  is that being truthful.??
You said you were never involved .. just never  had any contact with drugs,...
So ... Prohibition has had no impact on you one way or the other, really has it.??
Perhaps subject to circumstances,  such as your location...   your family...  your beliefs...   

I suggest the outcome would have been the same whatever the Law...  prohibited or otherwise..
perhaps you have never had a drink of alcohol, or a cigarette either.. 
..it is not clear.. but to say Prohibition worked for you,
is I suspect, a piece of sophistry.
:)






Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 16th, 2013 at 10:27pm
Sophism is a dark art used by lawyers and learned persons, not my cup of tea (herbal tea no caffeine)

I believe prohibition also worked for my children.

So we are up to three without leaving the house.

I have often wondered why  some pot smokers take on their cause with the zeal of a Christian fundamentalist.
I would have thought anyone with confidence in their beliefs would find no need to prothlesize

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 17th, 2013 at 1:35am
a fair question from someone of your purported innocence.

You haven't seen or understood what prohibition does in the world outside your haven.

So you are entitled to wonder.  I could repeat myself,  but.. it should be obvious..and I've argued it too much .. I just hope that one day the benefits will be acknowledged,  rather than the negatives being actively encouraged.

if you wonder... go back a few doz pages and read what I and others have said.

Or don't...  but .. either way .  .. informed .. or  not..  your comments are always welcome. :)

Do you live in a city.??

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 17th, 2013 at 9:12pm
I am happy to answer your questions.

I live outer metropolitan semi rural Perth.

If I wanted to grow pot, I have the land the expertise, in fact I also have the drive to be the best at whatever I do, or die trying.
If I was a dope grower I would be gold medal.

Forgive me for not reading the tome of posts previous.
That does not leave me totally deficient of knowledge however.

I get into trouble for thinking differently to "normal" people.
That also served me well in making a living, I see "left handed" thinking as an asset.

So can you think of any unforeseen consequences of legalising dope?

Probably not because by definition they are unforeseen, however lets crank up your random thought generator and think of a few. (most people have their random thought generator beaten out of them by school and education)

In the meantime could you answer my question from last post. (Why the missionary zeal?)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 17th, 2013 at 10:42pm
fair enough.. 

I  s'pose I stand up for myself.. and what I consider to be right.
I consider legalisation as preferred option and prohibition to be wrong.
I have lived in this society,.. and seen the division and disunity in our society as a result of these ludicrous laws..
the incredible harm this policy  CREATES.

Yes  I have been quite personally involved n the process,  off and on over the yrs......

and ..there has to be a better way,  and yes... I often feel outraged at the wrong path our society has chosen to go down.   so I express myself.!!

hope that answers, in some small degree, your curiosity.  :)

So can you think of any unforeseen consequences of legalising dope?

Probably not because by definition they are unforeseen, however lets crank up your random thought generator and think of a few. (most people have their random thought generator beaten out of them by school and education)


Ah this is often true  ... but I'm not one of them.

I don't think like  'normal' people either.  ;)

any unforeseen consequences of legalising dope?

that is a rather broad question.... 
Can I foresee unforeseen consequences of....... ?

Probably not because by definition they are unforeseen,

OK OK  .. yes I think I understand you... 

you ask whether I consider those 'consequences',.... perhaps already hi-lighted in media, or ignored by media,  need to be looked at in greater depth.

I absolutely agree Mickeytrees..  :)
It is not something to be summarised in a few short sentences...  and so I'll consider your request,  and ...

DO YOU  have some unforeseen 'consequences' in mind.?






Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 18th, 2013 at 7:51am
Yes, but better not to cloud your view.

(supplementary question without notice)

Are there any drugs or substances that should remain prohibited?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 18th, 2013 at 8:16pm
another hard question.

I would prefer... personally

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 18th, 2013 at 8:29pm
ooops 

ahh its the red wine don't you know. ??

that man-made synthetic 'party' drugs remained illegal...  the hope being that access to formerly illicit drugs would wipe out the market for things such as ice, ecstasy..   other amphetamines and hallucinogenic's. 
There are after all plenty of substances not made in a lab, available.

My preference is based on the abhorrence I feel at the trafficking of such synthetic, one-off, who know's what it is?.. drug industry,.. which  is wholely harmful in the nature of the substances ingested and the criminals who benefit from that trafficking.

I do concede however,  that by doing so,  a black market would remain in those remaining illicit substances.  It seems to be human  base instinct to gain from using your fellows.

So...  overall,  only poisons should be illegal.

It is entirely clear, that as a species,  we will seek 'other' experiences...  perhaps only once or twice in a lifetime..
and sometimes as part of a person's  being.... and everything in between .  To try to govern this with punitive law is doomed to fail.








Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 19th, 2013 at 7:59pm
In the resource industries you need to be drug tested from time to time.
THC can be detected quite a while after its use, this has led to the use of some of those real nasty drugs like Kronic.
That is nasty poo.

OK I digress

My guess is that if THC were legal, many more work places would random drug test.
Like alcohol is legal you still cant have it in your system doing lots of jobs.

^^^^ That may be an unintended consequence?.

What are my drug dealing friends going to do if they cant ply their trade as dope dealers?
I guess they will find some alternate substances to sell.
Becoming a law abiding worker is probably not on the radar.
Perhaps selling dope to people not old enough to legally purchase THC.

I am just throwing in a few possibilities

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lionel Edriess on Apr 20th, 2013 at 12:52pm
After reading some 10 pages of comment on this topic, I thought I might make a comment or two.

Have I had any experience with the drug? Well ,yes, a 40 year acquaintance and a bit of dabbling in other mind-altering substances.

First off, I'd have to say that I am not in favour of legalisation, rather that I am in favour of decriminalisation. The 'War on Drugs' is an un-winnable one, just as Prohibition was all those years ago in the States. Everybody is aware of the amount of money generated, the violence involved and the corruption that has become so entrenched throughout both police and politics.

What if we were to decriminalise marijuana use? The personal possession of say, a quarter of an ounce, though still liable for confiscation, would not be a classified as a criminal offence. If you could grow your own, say two plants per adult per household, still liable for confiscation but not a criminal offence. No 'dealing' permitted - minimum 5 years. Criminal organisations, and/or its members involved in whole production and distribution - minimum 25 years.

Society currently allows other drugs, like alcohol and tobacco, despite the huge amount of research and statistics that illustrate both the personal damage and the damage to others in society. It will be long time before Government legislates away the taxes it gains from the sales of both these drugs. And I see no reason to provide government with another tax stream when they have already demonstrated their irresponsibility with that from other drugs.

The hydroponic varieties available today as opposed to what was available 40 years ago is like comparing moonshine to beer. Small wonder we witness the effects on the young of today, they continue to push the envelope just as the young always have.

Hopefully, by decriminalisation, the market for weed would shrivel to such an extent that criminals would not continue to make the effort.

As to its increased usage, I see very little difference between its use and that of alcohol. Its overuse will attract the same sort of condemnation from society as that of the overuse of alcohol. It will remain unacceptable to be under the influence in the workplace, just as it already is with alcohol.

Just sayin'.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 20th, 2013 at 6:50pm
I find it unhelpful to bring alcohol and nicotine into the debate about THC.

Its a bit like saying hey I slashed my face with broken glass but its ok because I just got a barbed wire suppository as well.

No matter how bad alcohol or nicotine are they will not alter the safety or otherwise of THC.
(not that it matters but I hate  what alcohol and nicotine has done to our society)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lionel Edriess on Apr 20th, 2013 at 7:50pm

miketrees wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 6:50pm:
I find it unhelpful to bring alcohol and nicotine into the debate about THC. ...


Why? What's the difference? Aren't they both addictive, physically dangerous drugs that are sold, with some restrictions about the age of users, with the full approval of Government who then merrily accepts both the human toll and the taxes that the sales of these products generate?

Any statistics on the number of family breakdowns/domestic violence caused by pot use (in moderation)?


miketrees wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 6:50pm:
... Its a bit like saying hey I slashed my face with broken glass but its ok because I just got a barbed wire suppository as well.


It's not really hard to imagine that many tobacco smokers might give up tobacco in favour of the weed. After all, cigarettes are bad for you. How many drinkers/smokers do you see who already combine the legalised habits? You can brew your own beer, why not grow your own pot? The same type of restrictions already in place could apply to decriminalised THC use and production.


miketrees wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 6:50pm:
... No matter how bad alcohol or nicotine are they will not alter the safety or otherwise of THC.
(not that it matters but I hate  what alcohol and nicotine has done to our society)


We have to factor into this discussion some recognition of the Homo Sapiens species predilection for getting off their face! It's not gonna stop! Booze and smokes have been around since we learned to congregate in caves.

But to think that the newer general population will ever surrender this choice of a cleaner, healthier alternative is naive.

All that remains is a nod from Government.



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 20th, 2013 at 10:10pm
some fair comments there.. Lion Ed...

If your idea of Decriminalisation embraced a licensing system for those grow-your-own-ers .. I could consider it has some advantages to open slather..  to continue punitive police action on these people is criminal in itself.

I intend to answer Mickyt's challenge,  but I think the country can only benefit from a radical change in this area of Law.

The best way ??  not my job..  but I have ideas. Of course the answer 's I supply are consequences/outcomes I can fore see... not guaranteed by anyone... including me. :)

To wit ..

Mickyt

I think the question is a paradox...  if your question had been what consequences do you foresee ??? ..that's different ....
so allow me to elucidate.. on that basis.

These are both long and short term ...  and I'll put them in simple point form...  but in no particular order of preference, or timeline.

- many many more police officers would be able to pursue real crime and criminals.

- Courts of Law would be able to address serious issues of Law,  rather than being swamped with these matters, and the backlog in our Courts would disappear in a short time.

- Property crimes, thefts , robberies would be greatly reduced.

- Drunk and drug driving would decrease significantly.

-The Prison population would decrease significantly .

- Domestic violence incidents would decrease.

- Overall.. the level of alcoholism and dependence on tobacco would decrease.. over time. 

- The savings from the above outcomes would become available for the protection and care of the disadvantaged and unwell.

- Depending on how the govt taxed the new approach...
potentially the National Deficit would reduce to Nil and produce a Surplus in a yr or two.

- Farmers would be rejuvenated, and be able to grow legitimate crops that are much  easier on the environment
and allow a resurgence in rural Australia.

- Agricultural focus will look to the uses and benefits and come out ahead. :)

- Medicine would  be advanced, with the stigma removed,  the benefits for health ..overall  would be eye-opening,  and the opportunities for medical and scientific research would open.

- Medical therapies already available in Australia...  thru stealth and going against societal norms .. would become freely and legally available..  And CHEAPLY. 


SO  MICKYT

there  are a few of the consequences I can fore see. 
I have more..  :)

but perhaps you 'd like to comment ...?

cheers








Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lionel Edriess on Apr 21st, 2013 at 4:52pm

Emma wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 10:10pm:
... If your idea of Decriminalisation embraced a licensing system for those grow-your-own-ers .. I could consider it has some advantages to open slather..  to continue punitive police action on these people is criminal in itself. ...


Totally agree.

You can drink booze 'til it runs out your ears - but share a spliff with a few friends around a BBQ on a Saturday and, if caught, you are judged a criminal.

As far as I'm concerned, there's not a great deal of difference in the substance you're imbibing - it's the difference in the penalties that matter.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 5:50pm
Farmers would be rejuvenated, and be able to grow legitimate crops that are much  easier on the environment
and allow a resurgence in rural Australia.

- Agricultural focus will look to the uses and benefits and come out ahead

I cant see this.

Need to see how you arrived at this.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by BigOl64 on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 5:58pm

Lionel Edriess wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 7:50pm:
Any statistics on the number of family breakdowns/domestic violence caused by pot use (in moderation)?



Be about the same as alcohol being 'used in moderation' I would think.

Most things 'used in moderation' tend to not be too deleterious, being that is the definition of moderation.



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:31pm

miketrees wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 5:50pm:
Farmers would be rejuvenated, and be able to grow legitimate crops that are much  easier on the environment
and allow a resurgence in rural Australia.

- Agricultural focus will look to the uses and benefits and come out ahead

I cant see this.

Need to see how you arrived at this.


How can you not see this??

  For one example/
- People who once needed thousands or even millions of square miles of  irrigated land to produce cotton.or rice..... could use a fraction of the space and inputs to produce a crop at least as valuable, ::) ...and enable the rest of the land to be rehabilitated and/or put to other , better crops, or better landcare usage.
Such as other hemp varieties,  which our elders discovered, had many many uses,  and ..  does not leave an indelible mark  like plastics and synthetic materials.
Nor require the high levels of use of pesticides, insecticides and fertiliser...  all anathema to a healthy environment.

A hardy plant..  in fact.. capable of becoming a weed.. it offers much to producers.
Another example... all those Dairy farmers struggling and about to lose all,  could turn their very fertile, unviable
dairy farm  into an organically grown wealth of riches... not bow down and die before Coles and Woolworths,  if they CHOSE.

Entirely fore-seeable.  :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:37pm
Emma,

Quote:
Entirely fore-seeable.

A hardy plant..  in fact.. capable of becoming a weed.. it offers much to producers.
Another example... all those Dairy farmers struggling and about to lose all,  could turn their very fertile, unviable
dairy farm  into an organically grown wealth of riches...
 



And there would be a lot of stoned hippies walking around too.  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:48pm
so ?   :)

you mean like there are NOW? like.. dude.. its already like that... so what's the
.. diff..?? where is the bad..??

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:51pm

Emma wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 10:48pm:
so ?   :)

you mean like there are NOW? like.. dude.. its already like that... so what's the
.. diff..?? where is the bad..??



But there would be 10 times as many.
No one would be working or paying taxes.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 11:01pm
hee hee  you're soo funny BatFink.

ooooh  ohhh   evrybody gonna get stoned. !!!  EEk  EEk..

stupid .. the usual crap propaganda.. spouted by fearmongers... those who fear change....  EEEEKKK!!!!!

If you check,  I'm sure you'll find there is no over all increase in numbers of smokers...  in other countries enlightened enough to tackle this issue in ways other than making criminals. !!

Perhaps there might be a small increase initially,  from the curious,... but people won't just start using Pot because it's legal.  Perhaps a few...  it is really a non-issue.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lionel Edriess on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 11:11pm
Anyone recall what rope used to made out of in the old sailing days?

Hemp clothing, anyone?

Remove the THC and it's just another useful weed.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 11:16pm

Emma wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 11:01pm:
hee hee  you're soo funny BatFink.

ooooh  ohhh   evrybody gonna get stoned. !!!  EEk  EEk..

stupid .. the usual crap propaganda.. spouted by fearmongers... those who fear change....  EEEEKKK!!!!!

If you check,  I'm sure you'll find there is no over all increase in numbers of smokers...  in other countries enlightened enough to tackle this issue in ways other than making criminals. !!

Perhaps there might be a small increase initially,  from the curious,... but people won't just start using Pot because it's legal.  Perhaps a few...  it is really a non-issue.



But the bank manager looking after your money would be smoking a reefer
behind the counter at the bank & saying -  hey man.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 11:54pm
um he ha  ho   :P
thats not even remotely amusing..

you don't really think that Batfink  ... you're just stirring... 

anyone ?? like maybe Mickyt ?? have any serious comments..??

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 7:53am
Hemp is still an irrigated crop, it still needs inputs.

If there are places that get enough summer rain to grow it, it still has lots of other crops to compete with.
The agricultural nirvana you speak of is a bit unrealistic.
I looked at growing a ha under license but decided not to.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by FriYAY on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 3:26pm
Tasmania tried growing hemp (not sure if they still do – I’ll check – I did – see Hemp Australia)

You should be able to grow 2 or 3 plants for personal use.

:)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 6:48pm

Emma wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 11:54pm:
um he ha  ho   :P
thats not even remotely amusing..

you don't really think that Batfink  ... you're just stirring... 

anyone ?? like maybe Mickyt ?? have any serious comments..??



Dear Emma,
I thought it was quite funny -
everyone would be like the characters in the movie Cheech & Chong.  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 7:26pm
you mean Cheech and Chong's many LP's and movies.  The albums came first.   :)

They really cracked me up.!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 8:49pm

miketrees wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 7:53am:
Hemp is still an irrigated crop, it still needs inputs.

If there are places that get enough summer rain to grow it, it still has lots of other crops to compete with.
The agricultural nirvana you speak of is a bit unrealistic.
I looked at growing a ha under license but decided not to.


There may well be competing crops.. but NONE as valuable.
And it wouldn't happen overnight...  I'd expect a max of 5 yrs to put in place the necessary...   
nonetheless it would be a much brighter future than we have now...   :) 

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 8:57pm

Lionel Edriess wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 11:11pm:
Anyone recall what rope used to made out of in the old sailing days?

Hemp clothing, anyone?

Remove the THC and it's just another useful weed.


Well ,actually .. as technology moves on.. so does our knowledge. Yes Hemp is superior to cotton for clothes, and ropes etc.. but it also .. when properly distilled,  to remove the THC content, it provides a medicine which has had remarkable results with children suffering fron severe 'fitting' due to epilepsy. 
The current drugs use result in disastrous outcomes for the child. Awful outcomes..

The medicine , within a matter of 48 hrs, has resulted in 'fits' reducing from say  10 per day ..to virtually NO fits, per day at all.

Only one person I know of in Aus is licensed to dispense this medicine. 
Guess what??  he's an old dude from the Nimbin area.. and word of mouth has led to people seeking him out. 

with reportedly truly remarkable results for the children.





Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 24th, 2013 at 7:35pm
I think your market research needs some more work

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 24th, 2013 at 8:59pm
are you aware of what I am referring to in the prev post..?

seems not , else why do you make such a stupid  1-liner in reply?

Doesn't fit your paradigm eh?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 24th, 2013 at 10:22pm
The high value component of the crop would be oversupplied by about two growers.
Then as a fibre it has to compete with cotton, flax, wool and its just not adding up.
Paper is possible but there are many cheaper alternatives to an irrigated crop.

Clearly I offended you by asking, its not my intention.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 24th, 2013 at 11:46pm
aye ..but we seem to be talking at odds ...
I say its a resource  we need , which is denied us because of some sort of political philosophy.. that it is as acceptable to get stoned,, at home,, harming no-one, as it is having a few beers.  That it has huge medicinal benefits...as well as offering a more viable substitute for things we have come to accept as plastic... synthetic,  high - production, high pollutant... disposable crap, in other words.   

You are talking about commercial prospects, only...  and only ... as they are NOW.

If  crops requiring significantly higher water and upkeep,  like Cotton.. can be virtually REPLACED by Hemp products.. where is the loss..??

and that is not even considering all the other benefits I raised earlier on.
You focus too narrowly... but then... I find that true of most people I interact with. :)
Not to worry... 


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 26th, 2013 at 7:54pm
"that it is as acceptable to get stoned,, at home,, harming no-one, as it is having a few beers."

See that is a statement without any grunt.

I have seen what a "few beers" does
I have seen the damage done to pot smokers.

How do you expect to convince anyone with broad statements like that.

Perhaps you could quantify the level of damage that pot does instead of denying it exists.

Perhaps the damage is within some imaginary acceptable level.

The problem is that no one wants to change to the unknown.

We live in a democracy and politicians would sell their own mother to get votes so the fact that politicians are making no move in this direction must tell you something.

Society as a whole does not want dope legal.

I myself dont care one way or the other, people can get all they want now.

I would prefer people did not bugger themselves up with any product however

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Apr 26th, 2013 at 10:47pm

miketrees wrote on Apr 26th, 2013 at 7:54pm:
"that it is as acceptable to get stoned,, at home,, harming no-one, as it is having a few beers."

See that is a statement without any grunt.

I have seen what a "few beers" does
I have seen the damage done to pot smokers.

How do you expect to convince anyone with broad statements like that.

Perhaps you could quantify the level of damage that pot does instead of denying it exists.

Perhaps the damage is within some imaginary acceptable level.

The problem is that no one wants to change to the unknown.

We live in a democracy and politicians would sell their own mother to get votes so the fact that politicians are making no move in this direction must tell you something.

Society as a whole does not want dope legal.

I myself dont care one way or the other, people can get all they want now.

I would prefer people did not bugger themselves up with any product however



well .. you make some pretty sweeping statements there..  based on your own view...  nothing new at all... the same old same old.

'you've seen .. the damage done..'   ..yes we probably nearly all have had ocassion to encounter people have problems with substances.

I fail to see how this answers any questions... you simply repeat the same old mantra,  ...  its tired and well passed it's USE BY  DATE.

I myself dont care one way or the other,Mtrees

this statement by you...,
is clearly untrue....  :-?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by miketrees on Apr 27th, 2013 at 9:12am
Yes I lied.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lionel Edriess on May 29th, 2013 at 7:48pm

miketrees wrote on Apr 26th, 2013 at 7:54pm:
"that it is as acceptable to get stoned,, at home,, harming no-one, as it is having a few beers."

See that is a statement without any grunt.

I have seen what a "few beers" does
I have seen the damage done to pot smokers. ...


... I would prefer people did not bugger themselves up with any product however


One presumes that you have no objection, then, to the irradiated, genetically modified, gas-ripened, artificially enhanced foodstuffs now crowding our supermarket shelves?

To me, the occasional consumption of a little bush-bud appears of little import in comparison.

All things in moderation, mike.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on May 30th, 2013 at 12:37am
hear hear ~!!

a round of applause  for you LE.

There are SO MANY environmental hazards around, it is ridiculous to continue down this road to absolutely nowhere good.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jun 5th, 2013 at 10:57pm
so most of you 'newbies' don't care..? 



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ian on Jun 5th, 2013 at 11:02pm
legalise it. Dictating what type of plants someone can grow and consume in thier own garden is the ultimate in facism. Despite which its the only thing which gives this f8cked up world any sense.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jun 5th, 2013 at 11:14pm
yes..  a new.. another...better view,...

whats the prob?? 
hmmm ..too many people getting rich on the black market.

sad so many believe crap which pays massive dividends to criminals.   :( 

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Chimp_Logic on Jun 11th, 2013 at 9:50am

Emma wrote on Jun 5th, 2013 at 10:57pm:
so most of you 'newbies' don't care..? 


of course they care

,,,,,about themselves, corporate profits and materialistic ends

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lionel Edriess on Jun 14th, 2013 at 7:07pm
See the problem now, Emma? Not enough people care about it!

Now you can see the difficulties in keeping the populace on the straight and narrow, particularly when most of them are neither.

The only people who really care are those making money and those who can't get what they want.

And that, my dear, is a universal rule.

8-)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 16th, 2013 at 12:30pm
LEGALISE EMPHASEMA
:P

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jun 16th, 2013 at 9:24pm
::)
legalise english spelling classes..!!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 16th, 2013 at 10:12pm
unless I get paid for it, don't expect a professional job of it.
:P

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jun 16th, 2013 at 11:11pm
not even if you were paid baby. :P

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 17th, 2013 at 6:13pm
Bite me! :P

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jun 17th, 2013 at 11:17pm
:) :) :)

er  no thanks...  :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 18th, 2013 at 6:36pm
;D
Oh well,
then **** me ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jun 19th, 2013 at 1:06am
you didn't say please... 

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 19th, 2013 at 8:18pm
PLEASE  :-* :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jun 19th, 2013 at 8:30pm
NO :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 19th, 2013 at 9:04pm
Thats ok.
I'll forgive ya  ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 20th, 2013 at 10:08pm
(singing) "Sucking on my titties cuz I know you want to."  ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Jun 20th, 2013 at 10:10pm
Stop smoking pot - you'll all go blind.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 20th, 2013 at 10:17pm
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jun 20th, 2013 at 10:23pm
It  IS a bit of a worry..   :-?

better give it a rest Jas

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jun 20th, 2013 at 10:24pm
not that I think Jas is under the influence... 

errr... except perhaps for a hormonal flux...  ::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lionel Edriess on Jun 21st, 2013 at 8:08pm

Emma wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 10:24pm:
not that I think Jas is under the influence... 

errr... except perhaps for a hormonal flux...  ::)


'Course he is.

But you started it!  ;)

Still reckon a little choof in the privacy of your own home should be non-criminalised. It's no different to over-indulging in alcohol the night before work next day.

There's a difference between enjoyment and over-indulgence.

There's not a lot of difference in getting poo-faced - whatever the medium.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jun 21st, 2013 at 8:13pm
'tis true  'tis true

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 10:46am
Oh no!
There's something in my pantz!  :o
"It's alive! It's ALIVE!"  [quote Dr Frankenstein]

...excusem moi' - gotta go choke a monsta to death  :P

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 10:56am
runnin around the house naked  :D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4hFwJm41h4

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 9:15pm
Hey Em!
Wanna play Tennis?

Backhand

Forehand

Deuce

;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 10:13pm
No Reply  :-?

I think Em wants to spank me for being bad instead  :o

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jul 1st, 2013 at 12:10am
ah Jase my friend.. I've not been ignoring you.. JUST NOT BEEN on  MUCH LATELY. 

I'd SMACK YOU.. if you were handy,  because you are a naughty man.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lionel Edriess on Jul 1st, 2013 at 9:04pm
Best not to get involved is SMACKING.

I've heard that such behaviour can be addictive.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 3rd, 2013 at 10:10pm

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 29th, 2013 at 7:48pm:
One presumes that you have no objection, then, to the irradiated, genetically modified, gas-ripened, artificially enhanced foodstuffs now crowding our supermarket shelves?


I don't.  The risk is practically zero.

Irradiated? Health risk to the consumer - zero. It is not radioactive and it doesn't contain radioactive substances (other than Carbon 14 etc)

Genetically modified? Not in Australia, unless you mean certain vegetable oils, and oils don't contain DNA. No DNA, no problem. 

Gas ripened? What exactly is the problem with using a bit of ethylene?  It's non toxic.

Artificially enhanced? Not even sure what you mean. You mean the old story of chooks on steroids? Doesn't happen these days.  If it did, it would be a problem.

Having said that, there are some consumer goods that do concern me. Neonicotinoids, used to control fleas and ticks in dogs are decimating the bee population and wreaking havoc when it comes to reduced pollination (and yield) of commercial crops.

The next time you use a flea or tick treatment for your pet, check the active ingredients. Imidacloprid is the most common neonicotinoid in use.

I'll probably stir up the faithful zealots of the brainless deep greens again, but who cares.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jul 3rd, 2013 at 10:43pm
not at all Muso.

Thanks for the info. I'll check now.

OK I use two products for my 4-legged friend  ....

1 mthly  -  contains ..Lufenuron  ..  Milbemycin oxine and
Praziquantel.

1 - if live fleas on dog - Nitenpyram.

I do have lots of bees.... around and about... 

hope these don't have other 'lives' which go beyond their intended use.. ??

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Lionel Edriess on Jul 3rd, 2013 at 11:51pm

muso wrote on Jul 3rd, 2013 at 10:10pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 29th, 2013 at 7:48pm:
One presumes that you have no objection, then, to the irradiated, genetically modified, gas-ripened, artificially enhanced foodstuffs now crowding our supermarket shelves?


I don't.  The risk is practically zero.

Irradiated? Health risk to the consumer - zero. It is not radioactive and it doesn't contain radioactive substances (other than Carbon 14 etc)

Genetically modified? Not in Australia, unless you mean certain vegetable oils, and oils don't contain DNA. No DNA, no problem. 

Gas ripened? What exactly is the problem with using a bit of ethylene?  It's non toxic.

Artificially enhanced? Not even sure what you mean. You mean the old story of chooks on steroids? Doesn't happen these days.  If it did, it would be a problem.

Having said that, there are some consumer goods that do concern me. Neonicotinoids, used to control fleas and ticks in dogs are decimating the bee population and wreaking havoc when it comes to reduced pollination (and yield) of commercial crops.

The next time you use a flea or tick treatment for your pet, check the active ingredients. Imidacloprid is the most common neonicotinoid in use.

I'll probably stir up the faithful zealots of the brainless deep greens again, but who cares.


The proof of the pudding is the in the eating, as someone once said.

As an elder, I'm sceptical about the 'goodness' of the supermarket foodstuffs available to us when compared to the choices available to the older generations.

I'm all in favour of the benefits of refrigeration, etc - but I mourn the loss of backyard vege patches, fruit trees and the occasional chook yard.

My backyard, as a kid, had plums, oranges, peaches, guavas, apricots, grapefruit, passion-fruit, 4 varieties of grapes on a trellis we could climb and the usual vege patch. On a small town lot.

Should be mandatory to plant a few fruit trees in new developments as far as I'm concerned.

Then again, where can you buy seeds for Grosse Lissie tomatoes these days? Or, for that matter, pick sun-ripened peaches from a tree?

I've nothing against native gardens, but they produce FA edible fruit.

If nothing else, an established varietal fruit tree expanse across a suburb would promote societal integration.

Anyway, no harm done. Yes?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Jul 4th, 2013 at 12:00am

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 3rd, 2013 at 11:51pm:

muso wrote on Jul 3rd, 2013 at 10:10pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 29th, 2013 at 7:48pm:
One presumes that you have no objection, then, to the irradiated, genetically modified, gas-ripened, artificially enhanced foodstuffs now crowding our supermarket shelves?


I don't.  The risk is practically zero.

Irradiated? Health risk to the consumer - zero. It is not radioactive and it doesn't contain radioactive substances (other than Carbon 14 etc)

Genetically modified? Not in Australia, unless you mean certain vegetable oils, and oils don't contain DNA. No DNA, no problem. 

Gas ripened? What exactly is the problem with using a bit of ethylene?  It's non toxic.

Artificially enhanced? Not even sure what you mean. You mean the old story of chooks on steroids? Doesn't happen these days.  If it did, it would be a problem.

Having said that, there are some consumer goods that do concern me. Neonicotinoids, used to control fleas and ticks in dogs are decimating the bee population and wreaking havoc when it comes to reduced pollination (and yield) of commercial crops.

The next time you use a flea or tick treatment for your pet, check the active ingredients. Imidacloprid is the most common neonicotinoid in use.

I'll probably stir up the faithful zealots of the brainless deep greens again, but who cares.


The proof of the pudding is the in the eating, as someone once said.

As an elder, I'm sceptical about the 'goodness' of the supermarket foodstuffs available to us when compared to the choices available to the older generations.

I'm all in favour of the benefits of refrigeration, etc - but I mourn the loss of backyard vege patches, fruit trees and the occasional chook yard.

My backyard, as a kid, had plums, oranges, peaches, guavas, apricots, grapefruit, passion-fruit, 4 varieties of grapes on a trellis we could climb and the usual vege patch. On a small town lot.

Should be mandatory to plant a few fruit trees in new developments as far as I'm concerned.

Then again, where can you buy seeds for Grosse Lissie tomatoes these days? Or, for that matter, pick sun-ripened peaches from a tree?

I've nothing against native gardens, but they produce FA edible fruit.

If nothing else, an established varietal fruit tree expanse across a suburb would promote societal integration.

Anyway, no harm done. Yes?



Except that the birds, possums & bats get in & wreck all the fruit.
The worms & bugs have a nice time too.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jul 4th, 2013 at 12:07am
absolutely agree...

I remember gardens.. ::)  lots of people still practice this ..watch Gardening Australia sometimes..
they often cover  edible Australian natives... last week in particular... and there are references available too. 
I think it is just that as basically European,  we cannot recognise the value of native foods.... and are only now coming to realise their potential.

You are incorrect in your assertion that Australian native gardens produce little edible fruits.. and it will not be long before we will be exploiting these to our good.

Native Oz Finger Limes are all the rage in foodies enclaves all over the world..

Hey... don't you know?... Grasshoppers and Ants are starting to wiggle into our food choices....  and other unlikely sources... which have long sustained people from poorer lands.

IT is time we started to more widely utilise these native foods, as well as 'terraforming' our gardens  to grow exotics.

Variety is the spice of life.. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jul 4th, 2013 at 12:21am
but Bobby 
all God's children gotta live.  We have to SHARE...

and , from my own experience,  having a native garden full of bio-diversity results in the ultimate in bug-proofing... you let nature  rule... everything preys on everything else... and... we can get the benefits from this natural bug control.

Hey... I might have  lots of  'voluntary' plants  ... old tomatoes produce stacks of new plants... for example... and some are eaten by other critters,, but I still get enough that I almost never need buy them... and I don't even have a proper vege garden yet. 
Some of the native plants I have do produce edible fruits..
..the thing with them is they are usually small, and not easily recognisable. Takes new knowledge.. for us.

I am working on it tho...  thinking always comes first..  :)..
..then  ..waiting till it's right... and then... I DO IT.

NEVER had my own actual food garden before... I've concentrated on rehabilitating and enhancing my land to its natural state.

NOW.. I'm looking at a home garden for food.  And yeah.. Euro style for now.

Cress, corn, silverbeet, herbs... got the seeds..want to grow spuds and yeah... lots of stuff.   :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jul 4th, 2013 at 12:32am
what? no-one jumps in to tell me spuds and corn come from Sth America?? 

Well done guys.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Jul 4th, 2013 at 12:33am

Emma wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 12:21am:
but Bobby 
all God's children gotta live.  We have to SHARE...

and , from my own experience,  having a native garden full of bio-diversity results in the ultimate in bug-proofing... you let nature  rule... everything preys on everything else... and... we can get the benefits from this natural bug control.

Hey... I might have  lots of  'voluntary' plants  ... old tomatoes produce stacks of new plants... for example... and some are eaten by other critters,, but I still get enough that I almost never need buy them... and I don't even have a proper vege garden yet. 
Some of the native plants I have do produce edible fruits..
..the thing with them is they are usually small, and not easily recognisable. Takes new knowledge.. for us.

I am working on it tho...  thinking always comes first..  :)..
..then  ..waiting till it's right... and then... I DO IT.

NEVER had my own actual food garden before... I've concentrated on rehabilitating and enhancing my land to its natural state.

NOW.. I'm looking at a home garden for food.  And yeah.. Euro style for now.

Cress, corn, silverbeet, herbs... got the seeds..want to grow spuds and yeah... lots of stuff.   :)



You're lucky.
I find pests a real problem when I grow my own veges or fruit.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 4th, 2013 at 5:11am

Emma wrote on Jul 3rd, 2013 at 10:43pm:
not at all Muso.

Thanks for the info. I'll check now.

OK I use two products for my 4-legged friend  ....

1 mthly  -  contains ..Lufenuron  ..  Milbemycin oxine and
Praziquantel.

1 - if live fleas on dog - Nitenpyram.

I do have lots of bees.... around and about... 

hope these don't have other 'lives' which go beyond their intended use.. ??


Good choices. All very specific.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by muso on Jul 4th, 2013 at 5:17am

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 3rd, 2013 at 11:51pm:

muso wrote on Jul 3rd, 2013 at 10:10pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 29th, 2013 at 7:48pm:
One presumes that you have no objection, then, to the irradiated, genetically modified, gas-ripened, artificially enhanced foodstuffs now crowding our supermarket shelves?


I don't.  The risk is practically zero.

Irradiated? Health risk to the consumer - zero. It is not radioactive and it doesn't contain radioactive substances (other than Carbon 14 etc)

Genetically modified? Not in Australia, unless you mean certain vegetable oils, and oils don't contain DNA. No DNA, no problem. 

Gas ripened? What exactly is the problem with using a bit of ethylene?  It's non toxic.

Artificially enhanced? Not even sure what you mean. You mean the old story of chooks on steroids? Doesn't happen these days.  If it did, it would be a problem.

Having said that, there are some consumer goods that do concern me. Neonicotinoids, used to control fleas and ticks in dogs are decimating the bee population and wreaking havoc when it comes to reduced pollination (and yield) of commercial crops.

The next time you use a flea or tick treatment for your pet, check the active ingredients. Imidacloprid is the most common neonicotinoid in use.

I'll probably stir up the faithful zealots of the brainless deep greens again, but who cares.


The proof of the pudding is the in the eating, as someone once said.

As an elder, I'm sceptical about the 'goodness' of the supermarket foodstuffs available to us when compared to the choices available to the older generations.

I'm all in favour of the benefits of refrigeration, etc - but I mourn the loss of backyard vege patches, fruit trees and the occasional chook yard.

My backyard, as a kid, had plums, oranges, peaches, guavas, apricots, grapefruit, passion-fruit, 4 varieties of grapes on a trellis we could climb and the usual vege patch. On a small town lot.

Should be mandatory to plant a few fruit trees in new developments as far as I'm concerned.

Then again, where can you buy seeds for Grosse Lissie tomatoes these days? Or, for that matter, pick sun-ripened peaches from a tree?

I've nothing against native gardens, but they produce FA edible fruit.

If nothing else, an established varietal fruit tree expanse across a suburb would promote societal integration.

Anyway, no harm done. Yes?



I agree with you on most of that. We need to get more people growing their own. The old varieties taste much better than commercial varieties. You can get Grosse Lisse seeds if you do a Google for them. Vine riped tomatoes also taste better.

I also think these community gardens can be a great thing for community integration. (but often result in conflict)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jul 4th, 2013 at 4:30pm
LEGALISE EMPHASEMA

::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Jasignature on Jul 4th, 2013 at 4:33pm
...20 year old 'Pot smoker' kills girl child because she knocked over his bowl of weed.

::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:21pm

muso wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 5:11am:

Emma wrote on Jul 3rd, 2013 at 10:43pm:
not at all Muso.

Thanks for the info. I'll check now.

OK I use two products for my 4-legged friend  ....

1 mthly  -  contains ..Lufenuron  ..  Milbemycin oxine and
Praziquantel.

1 - if live fleas on dog - Nitenpyram.

I do have lots of bees.... around and about... 

hope these don't have other 'lives' which go beyond their intended use.. ??


Good choices. All very specific.


Good to know... thanks MUSO.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by freediver on Dec 31st, 2014 at 9:17am
American state legalises marijuana – and crime drops 15%

http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/30/american-state-legalises-marijuana-and-crime-drops-15-5004280/

Anti-marijuana activists have warned that legalising weed would lead to increased drug addiction, mental problems and crime – but in Colorado, which legalised recreational use of marijuana, the opposite has happened.

Overall, crime has fallen by 15% and murder has dropped by 50%.

Sexual assaults and car crime have fallen, and violent crime is down 10% overall.

Sales of legalised marijuana have boomed in the state – with more then £22 million sold in August alone.

The state puts 10% of that money towards building and maintaining schools, with donations now at £2.2 million per month.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by AiA on Jan 2nd, 2015 at 3:36am

freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2014 at 9:17am:
American state legalises marijuana – and crime drops 15%

http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/30/american-state-legalises-marijuana-and-crime-drops-15-5004280/

Anti-marijuana activists have warned that legalising weed would lead to increased drug addiction, mental problems and crime – but in Colorado, which legalised recreational use of marijuana, the opposite has happened.

Overall, crime has fallen by 15% and murder has dropped by 50%.

Sexual assaults and car crime have fallen, and violent crime is down 10% overall.

Sales of legalised marijuana have boomed in the state – with more then £22 million sold in August alone.

The state puts 10% of that money towards building and maintaining schools, with donations now at £2.2 million per month.


that is wonderful news.  and the American federal government has relaxed cannabis laws so states won't be harassed by the federal government over decriminalization of cannabis ... but cannabis is still classified as a Schedule 1 substance.  Until the classification is changed real progress won't happen ...

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Sep 24th, 2015 at 9:56pm
Such an important issue in our society, and no-one has commented further since last year.!  I do understand that other ostensibly more superficial issues have pushed to the fore, but nothing that approaches the importance of this question in our society. Governments change with ease.

This LAW needs removing but holds on with irrational tenacity. >:(

The WAR on drugs is just such a furphy.. unworkable, horrendously expensive, unsuccessful, AND CAUSE of much harm to us all.  Time to change the story.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Marla on Sep 25th, 2015 at 12:40am
All the way to go Ohio
https://youtu.be/TinwPAkFkno

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Sep 27th, 2015 at 11:59pm
we can only hope that more reasoned approaches to Pot, and other illegal substances, will occur, here in Oz. Our society needs to wake up to reality.  :)  Sounds a bit funny eh?  Pot equals reality.  :).


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ordinaryguy on Sep 28th, 2015 at 12:12am
Yeah we need more dope heads around.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 28th, 2015 at 7:21am
Pot is devil weed.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by bogarde73 on Sep 28th, 2015 at 7:54am
Ask any psychologist (unless he/she is a user)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Marla on Sep 28th, 2015 at 9:08am

ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 12:12am:
Yeah we need more dope heads around.


Your politicians not good enough for you?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Sep 29th, 2015 at 9:13pm

ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 12:12am:
Yeah we need more dope heads around.

Doh....  how ridiculous a comment is that.!!

You think legalising pot will result in an increase.?  Nah... heaps of people use it already.. the legalisation of Pot would allow the police to go after REAL criminals, not people who'd rather not buy into legal drugs that harm society.  Like ALCOHOL..  ::) ::) ::).


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Sep 29th, 2015 at 9:36pm

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 7:54am:
Ask any psychologist (unless he/she is a user)

I suggest you do,  and ask them to compare it to the psychosis of alcoholism, and legal drug addiction.

What are u trying to say Dirk.?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:05pm

ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 12:12am:
Yeah we need more dope heads around.

Better THAT than ICE addicts.!!!!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by fezz on Sep 30th, 2015 at 1:50pm
Legalise for medical, decriminlise for recreational...I'm now off my evil epilepsy drugs (x3) and onto medical pot.

I was still having seizures after several years of trial and error with meds, one of which was truly evil. Keppra, code named Kepprage for a very good reason...lets just say anger was my main persona on that one, coupled with extreme weight loss and paranoia...all in just 8 weeks from the first pill. Fast tracking off Keppra is no different than those coming off Heroin, not an experience I ever wish to go through again.

Now for medical pot, I have access to high CBD, low THC oil and plant material...guess what, not one seizure since the day I started taking this form of pot three months ago...compare that to an average of 11 seizures per month on pharma meds. For me this is amazing as every seizure my heart stops beating for up to 30 seconds, with a high risk of cardiac arrest...having that weight lifted from my shoulders because of a natural plant vs pharma meds shows how f@*ked up our health and political systems are...geared towards making massive profits over peoples health.

As for recreational pot, there is little general public understanding of how different types of pot, whether hydroponic or outdoor, organic vs chemical fertalised, time of picking flowers, etc affect the stone of said pot.
Is it a heady, hyper alert stone, couch lock or a serious munchy attack strain your looking for? It's all out there but one needs to realise, not all strains are the strain for you. e.g. if you're a naturally paranoid person, the heady high is not for you, better off with couch lock instead.
High THC, low CBD causes a high stone level but with little calming affect, whereas a high THC, high CBD will get one stoned and calm simultaneously.
As a general rule, once THC surpasses 7%, CBD starts to fall away to near 0% once THC hits 15% unless selectively bred. The strain I use is 25% CBD and less than 1% THC.

Get educated, there is a plethora of peer reviewed studies already completed, and I'm not talking US studies funded by the US fed govt that stipulates funding will only be given for negative outcomes.

Those with a pot problem are generally using it to self medicate a more serious, under lying health issue, those who use it for recreation and relaxation are very unlikely to have any issues with pot itself, ever.



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:19am
Thank YOU fezz!!!!!!!!!!

At last a response from someone who lives with this, not from those who preach the propaganda they've been taught, but never had to actually deal with.

Respect.!


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:33am
I think you correctly point out the hypocricy and sheer greed of Govt, and Drug Companies. Thank you again fezz. :)

Major reason Pot is illegal in Oz..?  because those big revenues from harmful and usually unefficacious 'legal' drugs would disappear if  Pot was available to all. Plus.. the crims would miss out on their money too. Can't have that can we ? ::) ::) ::) ::) >:( >:( >:(

Its all about money. If you think it's illegal for ANY OTHER REASON, you are just a stooge for multi-nats reaping an unethical fortune from the people.

And you should be ashamed that your support for the war on drugs , enables major terrorist factions to have billions of $$$$ to bomb you.  :o How fckd is that?  Do you not see the real world.?

I get mad when I think about the reality of our lives, as mindless consumers, so that CEO's and shareholders can reap the profits.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not to mention the crims and terrorists. >:( >:( >:(



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ordinaryguy on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:38am

Emma wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 12:12am:
Yeah we need more dope heads around.

Better THAT than ICE addicts.!!!!!!!!!!!


Better neither.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:51am
keep on dreaming about unreality ORDGY... humans have ALWAYS sought release through using substances. Every culture except Inuits have such things.
Don't tell me..!! you are one of those incredibly self-contained people who don't drink, smoke anything, or take analgesics for relief..! OH I know you have GOD.!!
Else go live in the Arctic Circle, where these things just aren't there. Otherwise..??? 
Have some empathy. YOU do not have the answer, and NIL DRUGS is simply impossible.

Get real .


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:55am
so Ordgy?  you never take drugs???  Please xplain.!!! ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ordinaryguy on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:59am

Emma wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:55am:
so Ordgy?  you never take drugs???  Please xplain.!!! ;D


Never came from the wrong side of the tracks I spose.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ordinaryguy on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:00am

Emma wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:51am:
keep on dreaming about unreality ORDGY... humans have ALWAYS sought release through using substances. Every culture except Inuits have such things.
Don't tell me..!! you are one of those incredibly self-contained people who don't drink, smoke anything, or take analgesics for relief..! OH I know you have GOD.!!
Else go live in the Arctic Circle, where these things just aren't there. Otherwise..??? 
Have some empathy. YOU do not have the answer, and NIL DRUGS is simply impossible.

Get real .



Sorry for not partaking in your world, my bad.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:09am
Why don't you answer with veracity.?  Explain your position.!

Wrong side ofthe tracks.??  You think only fringe people take drugs.?  Sorry but you are wrong, and please explain why you believe what you do.  You never drink?  Never take analgesics.?  Never drink Coffee, or Tea,? never had aspirin or paracetamol?
Pls reply with something other than platitudes and misdirection.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ordinaryguy on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:11am
Just get it over and done with and resort to name calling and chuck in some abuse (stir gently) that will do the trick.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:21am
Stop trying to evade the matter.  You state what you do, without anything to support it.  Please explain why you think this way.
I don't have to do anything than ask you to support your posts.  Please DO TRY. Otherwise,  keep your views to yourself, because your negativity does nothing helpful.
If you do have a reply ... else .... You are just a stooge. as I said previously,  for the current status quo.
You want the big multi-nat drug coys to profit from the people. You do want crims and terrorists to have almost limitless funds.
 
If you aren't of that persuasion, then please explain WHY.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ordinaryguy on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:33am
Get over yourself you come across as a wannabe intellectual idiot.

If you have drug problems, not my problem. Just because you have issues with drugs doesn't mean everyone else has. Deal with it and move on or get rehabilitated.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:41am
stop evading the question.
You want to tell us all why you have the opinions that you do.?

I can assure you I am not playing games, I am seriously interested to know where you come by your certainty.
I find your comments ignorant and arrogant and nothing but repeating the status quo.  Why do you say what you do?
Your insults mean nothing to me.  I am interested in the mind set of peiople such as yourself.  Usually I hear your type of rhetoric from people who have no real understanding of their fellows.  I just wonder why you feel compelled to support the current public political position.  I think it is wrong, and harmful to our whole society. 

Why do you hold the views you do.?
You say nothing except to denigrate. Why?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by fezz on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:19pm

Emma wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:19am:
Thank YOU fezz!!!!!!!!!!

At last a response from someone who lives with this, not from those who preach the propaganda they've been taught, but never had to actually deal with.

Respect.!


Thanks Emma...it's sure easy for people to sit atop their stool and judge with a version of the "moral high ground".

I know from experience that pot isn't all bad, I've been a toker on and off for 20 odd yrs anyway, nothing heavy as I've also kept a 20yr mining career going (D&A policies). I'm not exactly a low achiever either, doing just fine in my chosen field.
Alcohol was far more damaging to my body than pot ever has been, gave up the turps many years ago, best thing I ever did for my health.

The biggest issue facing the medical legalistion side is that big pharma are scared of losing out to a medicine that can be grown easily in the back yard and processed in many ways to suit an individual's particular need. All by the patient themselves, no middle men and no extreme profit markups. Can't forget lost tax revenue for the feds either.
Take for example, high THC oil known to kill certain cancer cells...3 month supply, $2500...compared to chemo, ~$30k for 8 week course.

Death is big business.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Marla on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:42pm

fezz wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 1:50pm:
As for recreational pot, there is little general public understanding of how different types of pot, whether hydroponic or outdoor, organic vs chemical fertalised, time of picking flowers, etc affect the stone of said pot.Is it a heady, hyper alert stone, couch lock or a serious munchy attack strain your looking for? It's all out there but one needs to realise, not all strains are the strain for you. e.g. if you're a naturally paranoid person, the heady high is not for you, better off with couch lock instead. High THC, low CBD causes a high stone level but with little calming affect, whereas a high THC, high CBD will get one stoned and calm simultaneously.


You sound exactly like the guy behind the counter at my local weed store.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 8:55pm
Really wish I had a local weed store. :(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 10:42pm
WHY don't I.? >:(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 10:45pm
Especially when we are all agog about ICE. I mean really,  why?
If Pot was legal, reasonably priced and supply guaranteed, ICE use would disappear with it's dying users.

Why wouldn't our government want to make it all better?????
The million $ question.! >:( :( :'(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ordinaryguy on Oct 1st, 2015 at 10:48pm

Emma wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 10:42pm:
WHY don't I.? >:(


It's illegal, DUH.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 10:54pm
Why does our government insist, at great cost, that criminals should control drugs.??

When they claim the budget is in a bad way, why do they continue to allow criminals to reap millions and millions of dollars from their citizens,  when the money could be used to improve our collective experience.?

Mystifying.

Is there ANY reason to this policy.?  NO
No reason,  just political fear and ???????????????

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:00pm

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 10:48pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 10:42pm:
WHY don't I.? >:(


It's illegal, DUH.


DOH  really?  Who made it illegal?????
Why????

Someone is getting mega bucks...  and our society suffers.  Of course.. the Police would then have to spend their time on real crime. Can't have that can we.!!!

Much easier to bust kids and 'fringe dwellers',  lock up the Court system with continuing small and essentially meaningless charges, while the real crims drive around in flash cars, have huge houses, motorbikes, boats, planes  ::) and all that stuff. !!

How is that a logical way to deal with this major issue for many many people,  and their families as well.?




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ordinaryguy on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:02pm
Ohh gee whizz I don't know. Lets legalize all drugs and watch em all die that sounds like a plan.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:02pm
ORGY,, you still haven't said why you think this is the way to go.  Do try and add something to the argument.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:32pm

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:02pm:
Ohh gee whizz I don't know. Lets legalize all drugs and watch em all die that sounds like a plan.


You still haven't answered my questions.  Why is it preferable to spend billions of our taxpayer dollars on demonising an essentially harmless plant,  a plant that has so much potential GOOD.  YOU are an excuser for poor policy.
What about THE GREATER GOOD. ? >:(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:34pm
Sorry ???  Pot never killed anybody. Not like some things you seem happy to allow./

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:36pm
wHY DON'T YOU PROTEST AGAINST ALCOHOL, AND TOBACCO AND OTHER DANGEROUS DRUGS SOLD TO US BY MULTI-NATIONAL DRUG COMPANIES.?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Marla on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 1:44am

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:02pm:
Ohh gee whizz I don't know. Lets legalize all drugs and watch em all die that sounds like a plan.



You have the lamest arguments.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 1:57am
YES   ..

but
HE HAS NOTHING..HE ISN'T ARGUING..HE IS JUST SPEAKING CRXP

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by greggerypeccary on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 11:58am

Emma wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 8:55pm:
Really wish I had a local weed store. :(


Move to Nimbin.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Marla on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 3:34pm
Or here:


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by AiA on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:54pm
I have quite nice memories of Estes Park, Colorado. Of course, that was before the decriminalization of weed. Colorado would be that much better now. An Indian reservation in South Dakota will be opening a luxury cannabis resort.  Weed + gambling. Them injuns are smart!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ordinaryguy on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:01pm

Emma wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:32pm:

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:02pm:
Ohh gee whizz I don't know. Lets legalize all drugs and watch em all die that sounds like a plan.


You still haven't answered my questions.  Why is it preferable to spend billions of our taxpayer dollars on demonising an essentially harmless plant,  a plant that has so much potential GOOD.  YOU are an excuser for poor policy.
What about THE GREATER GOOD. ? >:(


Yes kill em all legalize pot. More retards more retards kill brain cells yes kill em all. I love retards, more dopey dopes. You stupid dope head. Get a grip.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by AiA on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:09pm

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:01pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:32pm:

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:02pm:
Ohh gee whizz I don't know. Lets legalize all drugs and watch em all die that sounds like a plan.


You still haven't answered my questions.  Why is it preferable to spend billions of our taxpayer dollars on demonising an essentially harmless plant,  a plant that has so much potential GOOD.  YOU are an excuser for poor policy.
What about THE GREATER GOOD. ? >:(


Yes kill em all legalize pot. More retards more retards kill brain cells yes kill em all. I love retards, more dopey dopes. You stupid dope head. Get a grip.


What in God's name are you blathering about?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ordinaryguy on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:24pm

AiA wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:09pm:

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:01pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:32pm:

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 11:02pm:
Ohh gee whizz I don't know. Lets legalize all drugs and watch em all die that sounds like a plan.


You still haven't answered my questions.  Why is it preferable to spend billions of our taxpayer dollars on demonising an essentially harmless plant,  a plant that has so much potential GOOD.  YOU are an excuser for poor policy.
What about THE GREATER GOOD. ? >:(


Yes kill em all legalize pot. More retards more retards kill brain cells yes kill em all. I love retards, more dopey dopes. You stupid dope head. Get a grip.


What in God's name are you blathering about?


Use your brain numbnuts or lemmie guess another noodle brained pothead.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Marla on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 11:51pm

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:01pm:
Yes kill em all legalize pot. More retards more retards kill brain cells yes kill em all. I love retards, more dopey dopes. You stupid dope head. Get a grip.


You know by judging from your horrible sentence structure, inability to forge a proper and logical argument and a constant repetition of outdated anti-drug phrases, I'd say its YOU who has a serious lack of brain cells.



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Marla on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 11:53pm

AiA wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:54pm:
An Indian reservation in South Dakota will be opening a luxury cannabis resort.  Weed + gambling. Them injuns are smart!



South Dakota? You sure? That state is so conservative you dig a half-inch into the soil and it bleeds red. Not sure if South Dakota would ever legalize weed. Then again, Ohio is about to and I never thought I'd see that happen.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 5th, 2015 at 9:15pm

Marla wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 11:51pm:

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:01pm:
Yes kill em all legalize pot. More retards more retards kill brain cells yes kill em all. I love retards, more dopey dopes. You stupid dope head. Get a grip.


You know by judging from your horrible sentence structure, inability to forge a proper and logical argument and a constant repetition of outdated anti-drug phrases, I'd say its YOU who has a serious lack of brain cells.

One can only concur

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 5th, 2015 at 11:28pm
Perhaps the 'People'  of Sth Dak have their own rules.. on their 'Reservations'.
GOOD LUCK TO THEM.

Been to Nimbin  :).. not for many yrs tho.

I doubt it is as I remember it. Not likely to find out either.. too far to drive for me nowadays. And, while the countryside round about has many beautiful attractions, I'm sort of bound to my land.


greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 11:58am:
Move to Nimbin.


Still, never say never...see pics above in GP's post :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ordinaryguy on Oct 5th, 2015 at 11:42pm

Marla wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 11:51pm:

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:01pm:
Yes kill em all legalize pot. More retards more retards kill brain cells yes kill em all. I love retards, more dopey dopes. You stupid dope head. Get a grip.


You know by judging from your horrible sentence structure, inability to forge a proper and logical argument and a constant repetition of outdated anti-drug phrases, I'd say its YOU who has a serious lack of brain cells.


Actually the moment you attempted to use the outdated argument rendered your silly rant useless. It is you who has a serious lack of brain cells clearly. You cannot understand the content of the post so you throw a hissy fit.

Go pull your cone Marla you will feel better as a bogan.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Marla on Oct 6th, 2015 at 12:15am

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 5th, 2015 at 11:42pm:
Actually the moment you attempted to use the outdated argument rendered your silly rant useless.


Nice try.


ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 5th, 2015 at 11:42pm:
It is you who has a serious lack of brain cells clearly. You cannot understand the content of the post so you throw a hissy fit.

Go pull your cone Marla you will feel better as a bogan.


"Hissy fit?" Oh, the irony.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ordinaryguy on Oct 6th, 2015 at 12:18am

Marla wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 12:15am:

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 5th, 2015 at 11:42pm:
Actually the moment you attempted to use the outdated argument rendered your silly rant useless.


Nice try.


ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 5th, 2015 at 11:42pm:
It is you who has a serious lack of brain cells clearly. You cannot understand the content of the post so you throw a hissy fit.

Go pull your cone Marla you will feel better as a bogan.


"Hissy fit?" Oh, the irony.


You still trying the reverse your silly outdated rant. ;D

I see no irony just you coming across as bogan thick. Go smoke some more dope marla they don't call it dope for no reason at all you know, dope.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Marla on Oct 6th, 2015 at 11:28am

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 12:18am:
You still trying the reverse your silly outdated rant. ;D


You still here trying to come up with something original of your own?


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 6th, 2015 at 9:40pm
Yes ( Yawns) seems like it. Still doesn't make any sense..  just ignore it.. maybe it'll go away.

Back to the topic  :)
It is really a 'no-brainer'.  One wonders where the true inertia in political circles comes from, here in the wonderful land of Oz.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by ordinaryguy on Oct 7th, 2015 at 6:27pm

Marla wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 11:28am:

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 12:18am:
You still trying the reverse your silly outdated rant. ;D


You still here trying to come up with something original of your own?



Oh emma do try harder. (waits for emma and marla to come back online to back each other up ::) )

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 7th, 2015 at 8:26pm
I find it particularly efficacious in dealing with chronic pain.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by AiA on Oct 7th, 2015 at 9:52pm

Marla wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 11:53pm:

AiA wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:54pm:
An Indian reservation in South Dakota will be opening a luxury cannabis resort.  Weed + gambling. Them injuns are smart!



South Dakota? You sure? That state is so conservative you dig a half-inch into the soil and it bleeds red. Not sure if South Dakota would ever legalize weed. Then again, Ohio is about to and I never thought I'd see that happen.


Yes, on an Indian reservation in South Dakota.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 9th, 2015 at 1:03am
Sensible people then.  They know Mother provides for all ..guess they are aware of the possibilities, and the reality. Good luck to them.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 9th, 2015 at 9:34pm
so back to the topic .

WHY NOT LEAGALISE POT?.

Anyone got one good reason, ?  that isn't massively out-weighed by the positives??.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Sir Bobby on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:01pm

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 9:34pm:
so back to the topic .

WHY NOT LEAGALISE POT?.

Anyone got one good reason, ?  that isn't massively out-weighed by the positives??.



Mental hospitals are full of people who became psychotic from pot.
They probably had a slight psychosis to start with but pot pushed them over the edge -

now as taxpayers we have to pay to look after them.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by greggerypeccary on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:04pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79k2zd7PW84

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:09pm
Oh Dear.

Dearie Dearie me, dearies...

Take it somewhere else/ and preferably stay there. ::)


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:14pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:01pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 9:34pm:
so back to the topic .

WHY NOT LEAGALISE POT?.

Anyone got one good reason, ?  that isn't massively out-weighed by the positives??.



Mental hospitals are full of people who became psychotic from pot.
They probably had a slight psychosis to start with but pot pushed them over the edge -

now as taxpayers we have to pay to look after them.


Drug addicts live in denial intent on justifying the habit for themselves destroying not only their own lives but everyone elses with no remorse.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Sir Bobby on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:21pm

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:09pm:
Oh Dear.

Dearie Dearie me, dearies...

Take it somewhere else/ and preferably stay there. ::)



Greggy is sick - I think he likes being called gay.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:33pm

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:01pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 9:34pm:
so back to the topic .

WHY NOT LEAGALISE POT?.

Anyone got one good reason, ?  that isn't massively out-weighed by the positives??.



Mental hospitals are full of people who became psychotic from pot.
They probably had a slight psychosis to start with but pot pushed them over the edge -

now as taxpayers we have to pay to look after them.


Drug addicts live in denial intent on justifying the habit for themselves destroying not only their own lives but everyone elses with no remorse.



This is true and I do not deny it. Anecdotal and other sources agree.   

BUT............

I'd add not all drug users are 'drug addicts', as per your paradigm..

The inherent  'bad'  in that label is generalisation and seeks to simplify and demonise people. I don't deny that much harm comes about through people abusing illegal substances. 

I do grasp the difficulties in the process of rejecting your poison of choice, and commend all who try so hard to face their demons and find a new self. A truer self.

Good on ya's. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by greggerypeccary on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:33pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:21pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:09pm:
Oh Dear.

Dearie Dearie me, dearies...

Take it somewhere else/ and preferably stay there. ::)



Greggy is sick - I think he likes being called gay.


Only by you.

At night.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Sir Bobby on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:40pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:33pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:21pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:09pm:
Oh Dear.

Dearie Dearie me, dearies...

Take it somewhere else/ and preferably stay there. ::)



Greggy is sick - I think he likes being called gay.


Only by you.

At night.


Alright then - just to please Greggy:



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:43pm

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:33pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:01pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 9:34pm:
so back to the topic .

WHY NOT LEAGALISE POT?.

Anyone got one good reason, ?  that isn't massively out-weighed by the positives??.



Mental hospitals are full of people who became psychotic from pot.
They probably had a slight psychosis to start with but pot pushed them over the edge -

now as taxpayers we have to pay to look after them.


Drug addicts live in denial intent on justifying the habit for themselves destroying not only their own lives but everyone elses with no remorse.



This is true and I do not deny it. Anecdotal and other sources agree.   

BUT............

I'd add not all drug users are 'drug addicts', as per your paradigm..

The inherent  'bad'  in that label is generalisation and seeks to simplify and demonise people. I don't deny that much harm comes about through people abusing illegal substances. 

I do grasp the difficulties in the process of rejecting your poison of choice, and commend all who try so hard to face their demons and find a new self. A truer self.

Good on ya's. :)


See what I mean.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Sir Bobby on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:43pm

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:33pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:01pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 9:34pm:
so back to the topic .

WHY NOT LEAGALISE POT?.

Anyone got one good reason, ?  that isn't massively out-weighed by the positives??.



Mental hospitals are full of people who became psychotic from pot.
They probably had a slight psychosis to start with but pot pushed them over the edge -

now as taxpayers we have to pay to look after them.


Drug addicts live in denial intent on justifying the habit for themselves destroying not only their own lives but everyone elses with no remorse.



This is true and I do not deny it. Anecdotal and other sources agree.   

BUT............

I'd add not all drug users are 'drug addicts', as per your paradigm..

The inherent  'bad'  in that label is generalisation and seeks to simplify and demonise people. I don't deny that much harm comes about through people abusing illegal substances. 

I do grasp the difficulties in the process of rejecting your poison of choice, and commend all who try so hard to face their demons and find a new self. A truer self.

Good on ya's. :)



I have heard stories of 3 groups of parents who each have a  teenage child who is driving them crazy after getting onto drugs.
In each case the police & mental hospitals are involved.

It's happening every day in millions of homes.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:43pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:33pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:21pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:09pm:
Oh Dear.

Dearie Dearie me, dearies...

Take it somewhere else/ and preferably stay there. ::)



Greggy is sick - I think he likes being called gay.


Only by you.

At night.


Lets face it greg you're just a floozy.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:44pm
r u bord or wot.?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:44pm
read a book

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:48pm

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:43pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:33pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:01pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 9:34pm:
so back to the topic .

WHY NOT LEAGALISE POT?.

Anyone got one good reason, ?  that isn't massively out-weighed by the positives??.



Mental hospitals are full of people who became psychotic from pot.
They probably had a slight psychosis to start with but pot pushed them over the edge -

now as taxpayers we have to pay to look after them.


Drug addicts live in denial intent on justifying the habit for themselves destroying not only their own lives but everyone elses with no remorse.



This is true and I do not deny it. Anecdotal and other sources agree.   

BUT............

I'd add not all drug users are 'drug addicts', as per your paradigm..

The inherent  'bad'  in that label is generalisation and seeks to simplify and demonise people. I don't deny that much harm comes about through people abusing illegal substances. 

I do grasp the difficulties in the process of rejecting your poison of choice, and commend all who try so hard to face their demons and find a new self. A truer self.

Good on ya's. :)



I have heard stories of 3 groups of parents who each have a  teenage child who is driving them crazy after getting onto drugs.
In each case the police & mental hospitals are involved.

It's happening every day in millions of homes.


They are encouraged to experiment these days by looneys who want drugs legal.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:54pm
I have one for both of you

I admit I'd never read a book by this author before... just never got around to it.  But a neighbour lent it to me, among others, and this was the one I left till last,  because of my unfamiliarity.

Matthew Flinders Cat -  Bryce Courtney..


Takes a while to get started, but .. worth the read. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:56pm

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:43pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:33pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:01pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 9:34pm:
so back to the topic .

WHY NOT LEAGALISE POT?.

Anyone got one good reason, ?  that isn't massively out-weighed by the positives??.



Mental hospitals are full of people who became psychotic from pot.
They probably had a slight psychosis to start with but pot pushed them over the edge -

now as taxpayers we have to pay to look after them.


Drug addicts live in denial intent on justifying the habit for themselves destroying not only their own lives but everyone elses with no remorse.



This is true and I do not deny it. Anecdotal and other sources agree.   

BUT............

I'd add not all drug users are 'drug addicts', as per your paradigm..

The inherent  'bad'  in that label is generalisation and seeks to simplify and demonise people. I don't deny that much harm comes about through people abusing illegal substances. 

I do grasp the difficulties in the process of rejecting your poison of choice, and commend all who try so hard to face their demons and find a new self. A truer self.

Good on ya's. :)



I have heard stories of 3 groups of parents who each have a  teenage child who is driving them crazy after getting onto drugs.
In each case the police & mental hospitals are involved.

It's happening every day in millions of homes.


They are encouraged to experiment these days by looneys who want drugs legal.


Again don't lump all illegal drugs together.  Ice is not the topic here.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 9th, 2015 at 11:00pm
Don't put words in my mouth.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 9th, 2015 at 11:08pm
so back to the topic .

WHY NOT LEAGALISE POT?.

Anyone got one good reason, ?  that isn't massively out-weighed by the positives??.[/quote]


Mental hospitals are full of people who became psychotic from pot.
They probably had a slight psychosis to start with but pot pushed them over the edge -

now as taxpayers we have to pay to look after them.
[/quote]

Drug addicts live in denial intent on justifying the habit for themselves destroying not only their own lives but everyone elses with no remorse.[/quote]


This is true and I do not deny it. Anecdotal and other sources agree.   

BUT............

I'd add not all drug users are 'drug addicts', as per your paradigm..

The inherent  'bad'  in that label is generalisation and seeks to simplify and demonise people. I don't deny that much harm comes about through people abusing illegal substances. 

I do grasp the difficulties in the process of rejecting your poison of choice, and commend all who try so hard to face their demons and find a new self. A truer self.

Good on ya's. :)[/quote]


I have heard stories of 3 groups of parents who each have a  teenage child who is driving them crazy after getting onto drugs.
In each case the police & mental hospitals are involved.

It's happening every day in millions of homes.[/quote]

They are encouraged to experiment these days by looneys who want drugs legal.[/quote]

Again don't lump all illegal drugs together.  Ice is not the topic here.[/quote]

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 11:00pm:
Don't put words in my mouth.


oh its whywhyhuh

huh huh  ;D ;D ;D 

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 9th, 2015 at 11:09pm
?? :-?

;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 9th, 2015 at 11:10pm
Oh its emma peel ::) ::) :D :D



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 9th, 2015 at 11:16pm
Well  ::) :-?

you see this isn't ABOUT Drug addicts..

its about the Legalisation of Pot. 


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 9th, 2015 at 11:31pm
A drug addict wanting the legalization of pot who would have thought surely not . ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 9th, 2015 at 11:57pm
You are free to think whatever you like. You are not, however, able to add to tjhis discussion. You add nothing useful .. want to try harder, or just trot out your usual tripe.?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 10th, 2015 at 12:00am
Anyone who disagrees with you is posting tripe and not contributing. Why don't you just start a blog and stop everyone else posting and post to yourself then.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 10th, 2015 at 12:05am
why don't you try adding something of worth?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 10th, 2015 at 12:06am
Why don't you ?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 10th, 2015 at 1:14am
do go away you nasty little grub.

Anyway I'm going to watch MMA. I doubt you know what that is.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 10th, 2015 at 1:37am

Emma wrote on Oct 10th, 2015 at 1:14am:
do go away you nasty little grub.


Why talk to yourself like that ?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 13th, 2015 at 9:04pm
er WAS replying to you... but I find my own inner conversation quite entertaining.  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 13th, 2015 at 9:38pm

Emma wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 9:04pm:
er WAS replying to you... but I find my own inner conversation quite entertaining.  ;D


You stated nasty little grub. That would be you.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 13th, 2015 at 9:52pm
:) huh huh huh ..talkin' .bout you!!!, baby grub.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 13th, 2015 at 9:54pm

Emma wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 9:52pm:
:) huh huh huh ..talkin' .bout you!!!, baby grub.


Why talk to yourself like that ?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 13th, 2015 at 10:03pm
Ah  :)  I'm not and that's obvious. I'm talking to anyone who reads ths topic. Do I get a reasonable reply.?  or a dupe like you..?
Do I care.?

Well its always good to get rplies from thinking human beings.. but you can't have evrything,  and you can hardly say I am talking to myself, when YOU keep replying. ;D

Not that I think u r a thinking human being.. of course. You are a troll, but still, you must reply.  :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 13th, 2015 at 10:13pm
Clearly you are the troll, I was just commenting about your silly and childish post to yourself, I'm not the one taking drugs, you are.

If you can't contain yourself and need to run around calling people grubs if indeed you weren't referring to yourself I suggest to take a bex and have a lie down.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 13th, 2015 at 10:20pm
see? 
:) :) :)

Was I right or not.?  hah ha  :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 13th, 2015 at 10:21pm
See I was right  :) :) :) .


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 13th, 2015 at 10:32pm
so back to the topic. 

I can't see ANY plausible, reasonable, or excuseable reason for our current laws prohibiting pot.

Clearly failed, expensive, harmful to society as a WHOLE, and yet our pollies insist on dragging their heels in approachinfg REFORM.

WHY?  WHY?


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 13th, 2015 at 10:33pm
Every other frilkkin' thing has been reformed...  ::) >:(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 13th, 2015 at 10:44pm
Drug addicts live in denial intent on justifying the habit for themselves destroying not only their own lives but everyone elses with no remorse.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 13th, 2015 at 10:59pm
Reform is so obviously needed in this area of law.  It can only improve the quality of society as a whole if we look to better measures to deal with this issue.  It is clear that the whole range of issues which are encompassed by drug use is a societal and medical issue, NOT a criminal one.
To carry on down this path to perfidy  through continuing  prohibition is abhorrent to me as it is to many others.

YOU only speak for YOURSELF LOD . And I really think you have said very little to clarify your problem with this issue, except for this hatred you show of 'drug addicts'.

The TOPIC  is not YOUR TOPIC .  Start one about Drug Addicts if you want to, but otherwise, stay on topic please.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:09pm
Legalization of brain cell killing substances, POT in your case is REFORM to a drug addict and just plain stupid to any sane person that like their children to have all their brain cells.

Society is already full of and had a gut full of stupid people changing out laws to promote everything from buggery to being heroin enablers providing needles so people can continue to kill themselves.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:19pm
Can you perhaps understand LOD?  that most of the problems to do with DRUG ADDICTION, are because it is ILLEGAL.! 

Ridiculous,  but there it is. :(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:33pm

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:09pm:
Legalization of brain cell killing substances, POT in your case is REFORM to a drug addict and just plain stupid to any sane person that like their children to have all their brain cells.

Society is already full of and had a gut full of stupid people changing out laws to promote everything from buggery to being heroin enablers providing needles so people can continue to kill themselves.


  Thank you for your reply 

SADLY   Laws haven't worked, have they.?

You are saying that even those efforts made to reduce harm to society are wrong.

I would say they are trying to help those in need. Reduce AIDS  etc  you know? Seeing as they can't really be open about their situation, 'cos its ILLEGAL.

You have had a life changing experience and feel that there others that are to blame.
ANYONE, in fact, who wants to change the status quo.
Providing clean needles to addicts, for example, raises your ire.

You really need to understand that it isn't your fault, it isn't my fault.  It isn't the fault of the person.

We can only try and act to improve things.  Continued prohibition IS NOT THE ANSWER.!!!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:35pm

Emma wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:19pm:
Can you perhaps understand LOD?  that most of the problems to do with DRUG ADDICTION, are because it is ILLEGAL.!


;D ;D ;D ;D

Clearly you have killed one to many brain cells with pot if that's the best you can come up with for trying to legalize a brain cell killing drug.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:42pm

Emma wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:33pm:
SADLY   Laws haven't worked, have they.?


What did you expect to happen illegal drugs to disappear ???

Criminals will always be around.


Emma wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:33pm:
You are saying that even those efforts made to reduce harm to society are wrong.

I would say they are trying to help those in need. Reduce AIDS  etc  you know? Seeing as they can't really be open about their situation, 'cos its ILLEGAL.


So legalizing pot is now going to reduce aids ???
I doubt that



Emma wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:33pm:
You have had a life changing experience and feel that there others that are to blame.
ANYONE, in fact, who wants to change the status quo.


Nope


Emma wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:33pm:
Providing clean needles to addicts, for example, raises your ire.


No it raises the level of drug addicts on the streets and provides an "its ok" thumbs up for people thinking to dabble in something that will ultimately destroy their lives.


Emma wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:33pm:
You really need to understand that it isn't your fault, it isn't my fault.  It isn't the fault of the person.


Its the fault of the criminals bringing it in and making it available and pushing it.


Emma wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:33pm:
We can only try and act to improve things.  Continued prohibition IS NOT THE ANSWER.!!!!!!!!!!


YOU can say what ever you want prohibition of illegal harmful drugs clearly IS THE ANSWER.

Commonsense dictates making an illegal destructive substance legal is going to increase its use. FACT.



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 14th, 2015 at 12:14am
Its the fault of the criminals bringing it in and making it available and pushing it.
Emma wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:33pm:
We can only try and act to improve things.  Continued prohibition IS NOT THE ANSWER.!!!!!!!!!!


YOU can say what ever you want prohibition of illegal harmful drugs clearly IS THE ANSWER.

Commonsense dictates making an illegal destructive substance legal is going to increase its use. FACT.


[/quote]

Your argument makes NO SENSE.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 14th, 2015 at 12:21am
Try to understand that the people will go on using drugs, legal, and illegal.

Banning one as opposed to another is a farce, and unenforceable, and leads to criminals RICHES.
YOU WANT  CRIMS to profit, NOT US.
WHY .   I don't get it. It is a source of so much.... good and ill. 

We can REDUCE the ill and INCREASE the good... if we legalised it.  You can't really believe that a Law will stop this... so what is your agenda.?

POT is relatively harmless ... what is your problem.?  I think if Pot was legal, we wouldn't have anything like the problem we have now, with ICE and crims. For eg.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 14th, 2015 at 12:26am
One other thing,. .

Addicts are people.  They need help not inprisonment and persecution.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 14th, 2015 at 12:49am
Lol so your theory is be the dealer and make it a better experience sending people loopy.

Just lovely.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 14th, 2015 at 9:28pm
we get the message.  How about trying to listen and understand.?  If you don't like what is happening, in the US  states for example .. have a look at what has occurred in Portugal. 
I'd suggest your opposition is an utterly personal matter, hence your inability to approach the matter rationally..


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Phemanderac on Oct 15th, 2015 at 4:34pm

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:42pm:
YOU can say what ever you want prohibition of illegal harmful drugs clearly IS THE ANSWER.


Rubbish. How did that go with alcohol prohibition?


LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:42pm:
Commonsense dictates making an illegal destructive substance legal is going to increase its use. FACT


Well, history seems to indicate some support for that comment at least. Let's face it, people still use alcohol to excess, perhaps only more people do because there are more people about now though...

The important factors here though are;

- Now that alcohol is legal, it's provision is at least partially regulated.
- There are further regulations in place to afford greater protection to the wider community (drink driving, public intoxication etc etc etc) - clearly they are not fool proof, but, how much worse could things be if they were not in place?
- The use of the substance no longer has the threat of criminal conviction for something that is simply a personal choice.

No matter what we put in place, people will still find an outlet for their addictive temperament (if they possess that, or if that possesses them more likely)... However, addiction is a medical and/or mental health issue - remove the criminality and we are one step closer to some help...

Clearly, it takes a much more proactive public will though to really help people with addiction - look how reluctant we are to help problem gamblers - and yet, gambling is legal...

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 15th, 2015 at 7:34pm
it is true
the world is an unfair place.  I don't see why it is so hard to make things better. :(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by AiA on Oct 15th, 2015 at 7:36pm
why would you not want this?

If It Were A Movie, 'Oregon Pot' Would Be No. 4 At The Box Office



http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/12/447972924/if-it-were-a-movie-oregon-pot-would-be-no-4-at-the-box-office

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by fezz on Oct 15th, 2015 at 8:52pm

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:09pm:
Legalization of brain cell killing substances, POT in your case is REFORM to a drug addict and just plain stupid to any sane person that like their children to have all their brain cells.

Society is already full of and had a gut full of stupid people changing out laws to promote everything from buggery to being heroin enablers providing needles so people can continue to kill themselves.


Are you talking cannabis or alcohol? If the latter, you are correct, if the former...know your subject man.

Latest research shows THC actually helps repair damaged cells and prevent damage to healthy cells.

Alzheimers is one brain disease that appears to benefit from THC treatment.
Here's one of many studies on the subject.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2562334/

Research also shows that when the frontal lobes of teenagers are rewiring during puberty, cannabis is NOT healthy, it actually causes synapses to rewire incorrectly, same goes for alcohol consumption.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:29am

fezz wrote on Oct 15th, 2015 at 8:52pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 11:09pm:
Legalization of brain cell killing substances, POT in your case is REFORM to a drug addict and just plain stupid to any sane person that like their children to have all their brain cells.

Society is already full of and had a gut full of stupid people changing out laws to promote everything from buggery to being heroin enablers providing needles so people can continue to kill themselves.


Are you talking cannabis or alcohol? If the latter, you are correct, if the former...know your subject man.

Latest research shows THC actually helps repair damaged cells and prevent damage to healthy cells.

Alzheimers is one brain disease that appears to benefit from THC treatment.
Here's one of many studies on the subject.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2562334/

Research also shows that when the frontal lobes of teenagers are rewiring during puberty, cannabis is NOT healthy, it actually causes synapses to rewire incorrectly, same goes for alcohol consumption.


Incorrect. Try again.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:33am
Very interesting indeed fezz
and  AiA ..... 
I wonder what we are going to do about it. One thing I can say fezz... I think that link you provided (above) is both heartening, good news for many, and accords with my own experience.

I play Solitaire ( ::) )  now and then,  and I'm proud to say at age 58 I got my best score ever,  the other night. I had my first smoke when I was 14. It didn't do much for me ..  but opportunity arose to pursue it and so it is. :)

It IS probably better that cannabis is first tried as an older organism,  and the way our society works..?  this is sadly not the case, much like alcohol.

Why the youth are still arrested and introduced to the criminal justice system for possessing small amounts of pot and 'paraphenalia' seems to me to be the worst way to deal with the issue.  I was fortunate enough to have lived that stage of my life in a much earlier era,  and can only wonder how kids today remain 'sane'.
Sad world.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:33am

Emma wrote on Oct 14th, 2015 at 9:28pm:
we get the message.  How about trying to listen and understand.?  If you don't like what is happening, in the US  states for example .. have a look at what has occurred in Portugal. 
I'd suggest your opposition is an utterly personal matter, hence your inability to approach the matter rationally..


1. There is no royal WE . Just YOU.

2. I do listen and do understand, nice try making out I don't just because I don't share your view.

3. The fact you try and make out I have a personal matter, which I don't. Just reeks of your desperation and proves it is you who has the inability to approach the matter rationally clearly.



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:42am
WHY then do you feel so strongly about an issue you have no personal involvement with.?

Why do you feel able to speak as you do on the matter.? Perhaps you could explain more reasonably your opposition to legalising Pot.?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:53am

Emma wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:42am:
WHY then do you feel so strongly about an issue you have no personal involvement with.?


I never said I did you just said I did. I responded with observation of the topic at hand.


Emma wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:42am:
Why do you feel able to speak as you do on the matter.?


I am human and able to make posts on forums.


Emma wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:42am:
Perhaps you could explain more reasonably your opposition to legalising Pot.?


I have clearly and reasonably explained it so even a two year old can understand my position. I feel no need to make stuff up.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by easel on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:57am

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:53am:

Emma wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:42am:
WHY then do you feel so strongly about an issue you have no personal involvement with.?


I never said I did you just said I did. I responded with observation of the topic at hand.


Emma wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:42am:
Why do you feel able to speak as you do on the matter.?


I am human and able to make posts on forums.


Emma wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:42am:
Perhaps you could explain more reasonably your opposition to legalising Pot.?


I have clearly and reasonably explained it so even a two year old can understand my position. I feel no need to make stuff up.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:58am
:D :D :D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by easel on Oct 16th, 2015 at 1:00am

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 16th, 2015 at 1:05am
::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by easel on Oct 16th, 2015 at 1:11am
You think you're going to be able to socially degrade a foreign intelligence service deployed operationally and attempt to use that to improve your own image and get away with it?

Who's laughing now?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 16th, 2015 at 2:21am


I never said I did you just said I did. I responded with observation of the topic at hand.

Emma Peel wrote Today at 12:42am:

Why do you feel able to speak as you do on the matter.?

I am human and able to make posts on forums.[/quote]

;D   I responded with observation of the topic at hand.

I am human and able to make posts on forums.
.
;D ;D That's even funnier.

Your denial reeks. Your previous posts can hardly be considered rational.

Why comment on THIS forum, with such puerile and nonsense posts as you have, if you have any genuine interest in the issue.?
And yet .....
You come across as vehemently opposed, but u r apparently incapable of a rational response when asked why..

You've slagged me off  for my view, but refuse to support your position.

You need to clarify .. else  you are   ;D ;D :D ;D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 16th, 2015 at 9:14am
You're just a silly troll, get lost emma.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 16th, 2015 at 9:15am

easel wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 1:11am:
You think you're going to be able to socially degrade a foreign intelligence service deployed operationally and attempt to use that to improve your own image and get away with it?

Who's laughing now?




I am of course ;D ;D ;D


Well and probably the rest of readers here. ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by AiA on Oct 16th, 2015 at 5:27pm
crawl back inside your bottle of whisky lifeordeath

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 16th, 2015 at 11:58pm
I can only say.. you choose your own poison sonny, amd you may be sure that we know where you are coming from.  Not the royal we.. don't be facetious..!! :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 17th, 2015 at 12:37am

AiA wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 5:27pm:
crawl back inside your bottle of whisky lifeordeath


I can't, your ass is hanging out of it.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 17th, 2015 at 1:25am
tried AA LoD?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 17th, 2015 at 1:31am

Emma wrote on Oct 17th, 2015 at 1:25am:
tried AA LoD?


Why, it never worked for you. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by AiA on Oct 17th, 2015 at 1:44am
cannabis is slowly replacing prescription drugs in the USA. maybe LoD doesn't want to give up his pain pills :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 17th, 2015 at 1:53am
possible :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 17th, 2015 at 1:59am
tried AA LoD?[/quote]

Why, it never worked for you. :)[/quote]

Never had to try it myself...read an interesting book recently tho.
Perhaps, if you read books, you could try Matthew Flinders Cat by Bryce Courtney. First and only book of his I've  read so far, and pure serendipity that I did read it. It has a powerful message.

Slow to begin with,  it is worth a read. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 17th, 2015 at 2:08am
I like reading, I used to when I had an hour train ride each way to work. Now I don't I rarely find the time.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 17th, 2015 at 2:17am
Me too.  But I find the time. Should be walking the dogs.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 17th, 2015 at 2:25am
I find myself just busy 24/7 these days. So many plans and with social media everyone is connected its gotta do this gotta do that. Its like you never have any time and when you do get time you do nothing. Sometimes I think getting stranded somewhere for a while would be great.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 17th, 2015 at 5:44pm
Well knock me down and kick me in the head !! ;D :) :) :) 

The Libs are going to legalise it.. !!!!   

About frikkin' time.  :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) 

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 17th, 2015 at 7:16pm
Did the turnbull party legalize it ?

Gotta link ?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 17th, 2015 at 7:26pm
The News on the telly.!! :)

I saw it first on 10  .. then watched 7 out of interest.  Seven didn't even include it as a top story.! :) 
You had sit thru the majority of the stories before it was acknowledged at all. Typical Queensland.!!.  Sounds promising  :) :) :) :) :) :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 17th, 2015 at 8:00pm
This will be verrrrrry interesssssting.  :)

Takes a millionaire business man to change things for the better.. Gawd, what is the world coming too.! :o

:) :) :)
The only way Labor has a hope at the next election is to take it on and move it up. :) ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 17th, 2015 at 8:03pm

Drug lord I imagine , not everyone is a dope head, then again that's the Labor demographic I guess.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 17th, 2015 at 8:13pm
Mr Turnbull is a pragmatist.  The first such PM we have had for , well , decades.

As such he takes a realistic approach to matters.. not an agenda - driven one. It will be interesting to see how he overcomes the old school.  Good luck to him and his plan.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 17th, 2015 at 8:15pm

averageguy wrote on Oct 17th, 2015 at 8:03pm:
Drug lord I imagine , not everyone is a dope head, then again that's the Labor demographic I guess.



Oh dear, you seem to have lost the plot. Never mind... it'll all lookk betterrrr tomorrowwwww.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 17th, 2015 at 8:16pm

Emma wrote on Oct 17th, 2015 at 8:13pm:
Mr Turnbull is a pragmatist.  The first such PM we have had for , well , decades.

As such he takes a realistic approach to matters.. not an agenda - driven one. It will be interesting to see how he overcomes the old school.  Good luck to him and his plan.


Turncoat is a back stabbing lefty clown obviously just like the labbys. The turnbull party will be out next election.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 17th, 2015 at 8:18pm

Emma wrote on Oct 17th, 2015 at 8:15pm:

averageguy wrote on Oct 17th, 2015 at 8:03pm:
Drug lord I imagine , not everyone is a dope head, then again that's the Labor demographic I guess.



Oh dear, you seem to have lost the plot. Never mind... it'll all lookk betterrrr tomorroww.


I was one hundred percent factual. Maybe you should pull another cone perhaps. Get in some good head.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 17th, 2015 at 8:25pm
are you a Pal of Cods.?

Dog food you lot.


I'm just catching up watching on the Star Wars movies.. in time order, not production order.  Had to do it one day.  :)

So , catch ya later alligator, in a while crocodile.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Crainial on Oct 17th, 2015 at 8:29pm
Dog food is what we fed my family back in phillstine HOMO.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by LifeOrDeath on Oct 17th, 2015 at 9:14pm

Emma wrote on Oct 17th, 2015 at 8:25pm:
are you a Pal of Cods.?

Dog food you lot.


I'm just catching up watching on the Star Wars movies.. in time order, not production order.  Had to do it one day.  :)

So , catch ya later alligator, in a while crocodile.


Got a can of PAL with you have you ?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 18th, 2015 at 11:02pm
Get over it.

S*uck it up. :)

I'd never feed Pal to my dogs.....  they get bones and bickies and leftovers. No commercial crap for my big girls.  :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 18th, 2015 at 11:04pm
so its  good news   ::) [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif] [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif] [smiley=thumbup.gif] [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif] [smiley=bath.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=thumbup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=vrolijk_26.gif]

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:17pm
I must say I am very surprised at the utter lack of response from former posters here.   :-?
Still gob-smacked.?

Well surprised me too. Remember , it's not recreational use that is proposed to be legalised.. it is medicinal. You understand the concept I am sure.

WHY has no-one made a comment.? ( I don't count the prior couple... they are definitely wacko)  .. how is it that there has been no intelligent comment here, since the announcement.?  ?? Huh?

No comment?

So you were all stooges then.   ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Crainial on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:19pm

Emma wrote on Oct 18th, 2015 at 11:02pm:
Get over it.

S*uck it up. :)

I'd never feed Pal to my dogs.....  they get bones and bickies and leftovers. No commercial crap for my big girls.  :)


You can feed them DOPE now HOMO, noting but the best will do NO?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:24pm
I was wondering which of you two would respond first. You win.! :) :D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:26pm
well you are obviously too past it to be anybody's tool.  Get a grip boy.!!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Crainial on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:27pm
They don't call me the phillistianian cranial for nothing dear.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:30pm
Errrrrr
by the way

what does HOMO stand for?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:35pm

Emma wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:30pm:
Errrrrr
by the way

what does HOMO stand for?


It seems to be a muslim thing karnal posts to sound intelligent along with old boy I suspect.

Probably homomorphism if you've had a few cones or Buddha sticks.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:35pm
HMMM?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:36pm
Yes of course its all medicinal ;) ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 20th, 2015 at 12:07am
you know ?  I haven't heard anyone else refer to Buddha sticks for yonks.

:) ;) ;)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 20th, 2015 at 12:14am
I used to help druggo's on the streets in mid winter through the night find a place to sleep in hostels.

I know the lingo and what it does to people.

You sound like you would be into some good head. ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 20th, 2015 at 12:41am
yeah  dream on  ;D

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 10:12pm

Emma wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 12:41am:
yeah  dream on  ;D


The ones I helped weren't laughing, they were smiling most the time, others suffered depression.

Maybe if they were sitting in a comfortable home off there face posting online they might be laughing.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:17pm
INDEED. I have been fortunate. Who knows what the future will hold.?

Circumstances can easily become out of our control, especially with little or no familial support..Life is not safe, and life exacts its payments.

Not laughing at the homeless.. no no my friend. :(

Pls never think that of me.




Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:20pm
So you were laughing and saying dream on to my Buddha Head comment ?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:26pm
Nor the disadvantaged, because I know all about that.!

I seriously question however, this inference that Pot is the cause.  Is that what you are saying.? Or are you seeking to reach an audience about other issues.??
DEPRESSION...  a human condition. 

Because, lets understand something here people... no one ever died from Pot poisoning. No one has ever overdosed to the point of death on POT.

Unlike many legal drugs available over the pharmacy counter today. Depression, chronic, severe, or otherwise does NOT result from using POT.  PEOPLE may use POT to self-medicate, because the LEGAL drugs make you feel like ..#$*^&.

It is basic cause and effect.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:32pm
Pot usage includes paranoia and loss of cognitive ability.

Marijuana has both short- and long-term effects on the brain.

When a person smokes marijuana, THC quickly passes from the lungs into the bloodstream. The blood carries the chemical to the brain and other organs throughout the body. The body absorbs THC more slowly when the person eats or drinks it. In that case, the user generally feels the effects after 30 minutes to 1 hour.

THC acts on specific brain cell receptors that ordinarily react to natural THC-like chemicals in the brain. These natural chemicals play a role in normal brain development and function.

Marijuana overactivates parts of the brain that contain the highest number of these receptors. This causes the "high" that users feel. Other effects include:

altered senses (for example, seeing brighter colors)
altered sense of time
changes in mood
impaired body movement
difficulty with thinking and problem-solving
impaired memory

Long-term effects

Marijuana also affects brain development. When marijuana users begin using as teenagers, the drug may reduce thinking, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions.

Marijuana’s effects on these abilities may last a long time or even be permanent.

For example, a study showed that people who started smoking marijuana heavily in their teens and had an ongoing cannabis use disorder lost an average of eight IQ points between ages 13 and 38. The lost mental abilities did not fully return in those who quit marijuana as adults. Those who started smoking marijuana as adults did not show notable IQ declines (Meier, 2012).

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:32pm

averageguy wrote on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:20pm:
So you were laughing and saying dream on to my Buddha Head comment ?


Well, as a female,  your comment could be taken in more ways than one.

It was also a comment on the new age of drugs,  where Ice is nice. !!  Bring back Buddha.!!

Hah.  Won't happen tho.
MELLOW is not the word, anymore.

This world demands OTHER HIGHS.. to the detriment of all, as can be seen  daily in the News.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:33pm
What are the other health effects of marijuana?

Marijuana use may have a wide range of effects, both physical and mental.

Physical effects

Breathing problems. Marijuana smoke irritates the lungs, and frequent marijuana smokers can have the same breathing problems that tobacco smokers have. These problems include daily cough and phlegm, more frequent lung illness, and a higher risk of lung infections. Researchers still do not know whether marijuana smokers have a higher risk for lung cancer.

Increased heart rate. Marijuana raises heart rate for up to 3 hours after smoking. This effect may increase the chance of heart attack. Older people and those with heart problems may be at higher risk

Problems with child development during and after pregnancy. Marijuana use during pregnancy is linked to increased risk of both brain and behavioral problems in babies. If a pregnant woman uses marijuana, the drug may affect certain developing parts of the fetus’s brain. Resulting challenges for the child may include problems with attention, memory, and problem-solving. Additionally, some research suggests that moderate amounts of THC are excreted into the breast milk of nursing mothers. The effects on a baby’s developing brain are still unknown.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:33pm
Mental effects

Long-term marijuana use has been linked to mental illness in some users, such as:

temporary hallucinations—sensations and images that seem real though they are not
temporary paranoia—extreme and unreasonable distrust of others
worsening symptoms in patients with schizophrenia (a severe mental disorder with symptoms such as hallucinations, paranoia, and disorganized thinking)
Marijuana use has also been linked to other mental health problems, such as:

depression
anxiety
suicidal thoughts among teens

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:34pm
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana



That's where I am coming from.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:39pm
Indeed again  POT MAY lead to the things you have listed.  I could list lots of other things which do similar, and they are legal.
No way can you say this applies in all cases.
  The study you refer to is one of thousands. No one agrees all the time about everything, and generalisation of the potential to include the whole is farcical.

The people that use may well have to deal with much more significant issues than your  'mays'.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:39pm
Pot DOES lead to the things that I have listed.

Live in ignorance I am done here.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:47pm

averageguy wrote on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:33pm:
Mental effects

Long-term marijuana use has been linked to mental illness in some users, such as:

temporary hallucinations—sensations and images that seem real though they are not
temporary paranoia—extreme and unreasonable distrust of others
worsening symptoms in patients with schizophrenia (a severe mental disorder with symptoms such as hallucinations, paranoia, and disorganized thinking)
Marijuana use has also been linked to other mental health problems, such as:

depression
anxiety
suicidal thoughts among teens



Well goodness me. I concur that those with  actual schizophrenia may be adversly affected.. but then again they may NOT.

depression
anxiety
suicidal thoughts among teens.......

Do you attempt to blame this on POT.? I can assure you I had all those before I ever touched POT.
Ever thought about the way our society/Law has treated these people.? Perhaps the paranoia has something to do with the persecution suffered by smokers.?

...I'll look at your link... but as it is gov sponsored one can only have an expectation that it will follow the policy of WAR on ......



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:50pm

averageguy wrote on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:39pm:
Pot DOES lead to the things that I have listed.

Live in ignorance I am done here.


DISAGREE BIG TIME.

Cause and effect my friend,  cause and effect. .

So much easier to blame some weed than to look at the real causes of societal dysfunction.

Are you done?  Good O .

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by averageguy on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:50pm
What a load of crap that's just an excuse for you to exercise your ignorance on the issue.

I'll leave you alone since I am so ignorant and stupid.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Crainial on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:52pm
You would have just been better off supplying the paranoid pot head. .
At least you would have made a buck or two.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 12:02am

averageguy wrote on Oct 22nd, 2015 at 11:50pm:
What a load of crap that's just an excuse for you to exercise your ignorance on the issue.

I'll leave you alone since I am so ignorant and stupid.


WELL  ..you said it.
  Believe all the propaganda and stats you like. 
I KNOW what my life has been like, and I KNOW that I never called you ignorant or stupid, whereas you are happy to call me the same. That suggests some bias IMO. You work for the govt.?  You are a stooge?.  a shill? . a propagandist?

You present all this stuff,  but do you KNOW what you are talking about.? WHY do you do so?



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Crainial on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 12:21am
Paranoia at its best you should have gone off the pot before it was too late. ::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 12:29am
yeah I think the average guy has lost the plot. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Crainial on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 12:35am
Hope you're not a mother. ::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 12:57am
What has that got to do with anything.... you think you are clever.? :D


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Crainial on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 12:58am

Emma wrote on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 12:57am:
What has that got to do with anything.... you think you are clever.? :D

Sad to say,  you are not.  :P   you are anything but......


Coming from a pot head I'll take that as a compliment.


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:05am
you AMUSE me... don't stop now. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Crainial on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:08am

Emma wrote on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:05am:
you AMUSE me... don't stop now. :)


Have another cone and you will begin to amuse yourself. ::)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:17am
:)Thats a laugh.
  I amuse myself in many ways.....

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Crainial on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:21am

Emma wrote on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:17am:
:)Thats a laugh.
  I amuse myself in many ways.....


By promoting drugs and telling people to piss off.

Lovely, no?

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:22am
In fact I often find myself amusing.
I  take anything irrelevant as interesting.

Your comments are entertaining..please continue. :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:24am

Crainial wrote on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:21am:

Emma wrote on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:17am:
:)Thats a laugh.
  I amuse myself in many ways.....


By promoting drugs and telling people to piss off.

Lovely, no?


Poor dear.. you have lots to learn. You mean you don't take drugs.?  ;D ::) :P

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Crainial on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:27am

Emma wrote on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:24am:

Crainial wrote on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:21am:

Emma wrote on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:17am:
:)Thats a laugh.
  I amuse myself in many ways.....


By promoting drugs and telling people to piss off.

Lovely, no?


Poor dear.. you have lots to learn. You mean you don't take drugs.?  ;D ::) :P


Evidently nothing to learn from you obviously.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:48am
well you could look at your own situation, and answer honestly.

You do take drugs don't you. ? Eh?  But you think you are good because they are legal. ?

Lot to learn dear.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Crainial on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:53am

Emma wrote on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 1:48am:
well you could look at your own situation, and answer honestly.

You do take drugs don't you. ? Eh?  But you think you are good because they are legal. ?

Lot to learn dear.


Not from you dear.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 2:08am
Please see a definition of  "drug"..............

drug (drug) n. 1.  A substance used as medicine in the treatment of disease...

So ?  My point ?   you may not have a disease, but I bet you still take drugs.

Like:
Coffee
Tea
Energy drinks .. = Caffeine
Paracetamol
Nicotine
Alcohol
Aspirin

..or any other drug for the relief of such things as

diabetes
heart disease
depression
blood pressure
pain
infection
inflammation
high cholesterol....etc

the list goes on.  What is the difference.?
A drug is a drug, and you might feel good about slagging off some ,  but I bet you use others. :(



Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 2:20am
be honest

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by fezz on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 4:03pm
Cranial and averageguy, you're sure to dig this lot then.

https://www.facebook.com/MMYVofficial

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 8:26pm
yes its a farce..  :)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 11:13pm
I just hope it doesn't take too long to overthrow the foul regime of the War on Drugs.! >:(

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Crainial on Oct 24th, 2015 at 12:22am

Emma wrote on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 2:20am:
be honest


FUUCK of you idiot druggo.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by AiA on Oct 24th, 2015 at 4:15am
Canada is set to become the beacon of cannabis freedom. Go Canada!

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 24th, 2015 at 8:11pm

Crainial wrote on Oct 24th, 2015 at 12:22am:

Emma wrote on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 2:20am:
be honest


FUUCK of you idiot druggo.


Says it all yeah. You are a drongo.... with some serious problems.  get help

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Bazza on Oct 24th, 2015 at 11:38pm

Crainial wrote on Oct 24th, 2015 at 12:22am:

Emma wrote on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 2:20am:
be honest


FUUCK of you idiot druggo.


Lets see where free speech get you even though you posted what most think.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 25th, 2015 at 9:03pm

Bazza wrote on Oct 24th, 2015 at 11:38pm:

Crainial wrote on Oct 24th, 2015 at 12:22am:

Emma wrote on Oct 23rd, 2015 at 2:20am:
be honest


FUUCK of you idiot druggo.


Lets see where free speech get you even though you posted what most think.


As a self-professed speaker for 'most people' ..do tell what most think Bazza.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by AiA on Oct 26th, 2015 at 5:24am
The health benefits of whole-plant cannabis oil are incredible. To keep this medicine from those who can benefit is an outright crime.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 26th, 2015 at 8:56pm
Yes.. even Hemp Oil is popular, and sold by the local chemist.  I like soap which includes Hemp oil. That is also currently available,, etc etc..

:)

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by AiA on Oct 27th, 2015 at 12:10am
The Economist:

"If (Marijuana) were unknown, its discovery would no doubt be hailed as a medical breakthrough. Scientists would praise its potential for treating everything from pain to cancer and marvel at its rich pharmacopoeia; many of whose chemicals mimic vital molecules in the human body."

http://www.medicalmarijuana.co.uk/latest-cannabis-research-update-bladder-cancer-israeli-studies-and-anti-tumour-properties/

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Oct 27th, 2015 at 11:15pm
without the stigma of being labelled an illegal poison (drug) I'm sure we will find many many uses for this  beneficial plant. 


Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by AiA on Oct 29th, 2015 at 7:04am

Emma wrote on Oct 27th, 2015 at 11:15pm:
without the stigma of being labelled an illegal poison (drug) I'm sure we will find many many uses for this  beneficial plant. 



You are a sensible lady Emma.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by AiA on Nov 2nd, 2015 at 5:43am
Marijuana May Fight Lung Tumors

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-may-fight-lung-tumors/

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by Emma Peel on Nov 2nd, 2015 at 11:23pm
that is an interesting link.

Lets accept facts people, Pot can have enormous potential for good.
Let go of the propaganda.

I call it Pot.. you call it Marijuana..  it is Cannabis.
There are several types... lets hope we finally get some benefit, rather than the harm caused by prohibition.

Title: Re: Legalisation of pot?
Post by freediver on May 2nd, 2018 at 10:25am
This Topic was moved here from Drug Policy by freediver.

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.