This is very helpful.
I comment here out of tangential frustration: Cannabis is good. It is a boon to the down hearted, a fount of creativity, a social lubricant, a purveyor of mystery, a answer to no question and answer to all.
Yet people seem to think, to be taken seriously, one has to talk of cannabis harm. How do we expect people to vote for something harmful?!
To say: "But Worik, cannabis can be harmful" is a empty statement that contains nothing. A brick can be harmful, or it can be part of a wall. A wall can be harmful when it locks you in and beneficial when it locks out the monsters.
So my plea to Yes campaigners is stop talking about the harm of cannabis.
He is a registered medical practitioner.
Does not mean he knows what he is talking about, or is not threatened by legalising cannabis....
My daughter was getting mentally prepared to leave Melbourne for NZ (after five years as a street poet... other story that makes her dad proud) as Australia was "literally and figuratively on fire". But plan was to do it some time this year, or next. No rush....
On end of business 20-March Melbourne was heading into chaos and daughter realised that letting her passport lapse was, erm, inconvenient. Passport arrived late on Tuesday (thank you, from the bottom of my heart to the crew at the consulate, it was due Thursday) on the plane Wednesday, landed in Dunedin one hour before the curfew.
Happened to have a vacant flat for her to quarantine in... Whew.
Our band was due to play the awards night at the Fringe here, when it was cancelled we took over the fringe theatre and did a online gig....
I love a good fight!
I know I should stay out of this one.
I just can't!
That's all I've got to say
therapeutic approach more beneficial
So not for cannabis, which itself is therapeutic...
no public interest in a prosecution
so bust young men, they are always guilty of something so best be safe and bust scruffy brown. ones who are just disturbing.
Made my day.
Mostly a good proposal.
But selling does need to be a crime? Even if it is just against regulation, like moderate speeding big business would stay out
But for every drug that is successful there are many that fail completely and somehow these companies have to cover that cost.
Some one else replied that most drugs are not expensive to develop but are tweaks (to make it patentable again) and some one else pointed out that the companies spend more on marketing (given the nature of the medical profession I am glad they do their own marketing, but that is another story of another failure)
I would like to add that the expensive research is no longer (in general) done by big Pharma but by startups using high risk investment money (or spun out of University Departments). Big Pharma buys what is successful and ignores the rest. Drastically reduces the costs of drug development.
Crocodile tears, this is about profits.
Nice article. Hideous problem When a person's quality is judged by a urine sample...
At the bottom.
After I read it
Not impressed. Very unimpressed. Glad there is some indication (happy to be wrong about that) but it is hard enough to find that I missed it.
How about putting the word "Advertisement" prominently at the start?
Some of Russell's blogs are long and always (almost..) interesting. To get to the bottom and to find that it was advertising copy is a crock.