justify changing this law in the name of addiction prevention or any effort to reduce harm when they continue to allow alcohol, tobacco and codeine to be freely available.
Why do you need to ban everything at the same time? Alcohol and tobacco may have just as bad/worse physiological effects as cannabiniods, but they have also been around a lot longer. As such, they have a greater social significance, and that makes them much harder to ban. It seems logical to start (and possibly finish) with the easier target, does it not?
I can see how you've read my comment as a call to ban everything, but that wasn’t the intention. It was more an observation of the hypocrisy associated with the Governments motives. I actually don’t support prohibition of anything at all. Historically we can see that prohibition has never worked and banning cannabinoid mimics will not work either.
I’ve noticed the amount of government information that’s been supplied about the risks of taking legal and illegal drugs. Stuff like this? As in, none at all.
C.A.D.S. has Sorted, but that hasn't been updated since 2008. Budget cut when National came in, presumably.
Sorted probably wasn't helped by Paul Holmes' ridiculous rant (in his terrible TV doco on P) about the section on amphetamines, which noted, quite properly, that amphetamines can be good for parties. Drug information that can't acknowledge the reason people take recreational drugs (the clue is in the name -- they're fun) is of limited use and won't be paid attention to.
Alcohol and tobacco may have just as bad/worse physiological effects as cannabiniods, but they have also been around a lot longer. As such, they have a greater social significance
Certainly within recent memory. but we're still comparing substances that have been used recreationally for 1000s of years
and which all enjoyed degrees of social significance until a century ago
I stand corrected.
I think there is a silver lining. We may, at some point, change the debate from just about harm reduction to one about harm reduction and human rights. It's kind of amazing how far the rights aspect has been crushed out of the discourse. It's like rights just don't even exist, in this debate. All we talk about is harm. All we measure is harm. All we legislate on is harm. The fact that every single one of us just lost the right to every single chemical invented (barring 3), and yet to be invented, if it is the least bit psychoactive, until such a time as goodness-knows-who decides it's OK, barely even lifts its head. I'm quite astonished, really. Are we so used to losing our rights one at a time that when they just take the rest it barely rates a mention?
There are rights to chemicals as yet ungotten and unborn/
That shall have cause to curse our politicians' scorn
The fact that every single one of us just lost the right to every single chemical invented (barring 3), and yet to be invented, if it is the least bit psychoactive, until such a time as goodness-knows-who decides it’s OK, barely even lifts its head.
You are, and have been, correct on this.
It’s kind of amazing how far the rights aspect has been crushed out of the discourse.
Good call. I think decriminalisation advocates stopped using 'rights' in anti-prohibition discourse because it just hasn't had any impact. The use of 'harm' has a long history in discussions about rights and self determination.
John Stuart Mill wrote about it only being appropriate to assert control over someone to prevent harm to others - that they might do harm to themselves wasn't a good enough reason to reduce their personal liberty. "Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Mill 1859.
I agree with Ben - we've become accustomed to a slow degradation of our freedoms. This debate is about reduction of harm but it is also about our rights and our personal liberty.
taking liberties with Valence...
...just lost the right to every single chemical invented (barring 3)
Son of the Return of Chemystery!
good grief I guess I will be banned now...ah well
""John Stuart Mill wrote about it only being appropriate to assert control over someone to prevent harm to others – that they might do harm to themselves wasn’t a good enough reason to reduce their personal liberty. “Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” Mill 1859. ""
Inspector Stu Mills thinks cannabis was the sole cause of 2000 hospital admissions a year. He also thinks that it cost tax payers $30 million a year...but was...let us say...he was badly advised...
I know it's a repeat...russell...you should take appropriate action..
NDIB also plagiarized...unattributed copying...on matters that effect the operation of the law....Well done no consequence D I MIlls.
It is worth noting how you can lose several rights if you turn psychotic.
That's a risk I'm willing to take every single time I drink alcohol, which is actually the only substance I've ever had a psychotic break on.
my goodness...I have been so disorganized lately...apparently...synthetic cannabis goes illegal tomorrow ...WTF? seriously,,,shit....
I raced down to wicked habbits but they had shut early....stop people getting high before it is illegal they said....man i would have so stock piled...if i had only known....
starting be a bummer on my week.....
,,,couldn't even find an errant diary on the way home....go figure
people should not stock pile....actually,,,not like the BZP days aye...
man i had enough BZP to last me until I retire of it...then the police raided me and confiscated the lot i purchased before then ban....
liberty and valour (ance)
I'm glad you recognize this, Russell. I've had a few friends credit me with that recently, on this. They really didn't think the government would go this far, but I just haven't seen any movement at all in a direction that would ever make me think that a guy like Peter Dunne ever had the slightest interest in whether people actually have a good time on legal (or not) highs. The most credit I'll give him is that he may have believed that driving legal stuff out would cause more harm. He might even still believe that - he professes to. It might even be true (I think it is, and I think it started intensifying the very moment the PSA first passed into law). But he's not prepared to put in even one word on the positive side of any substance against which his silver hammer struck over and over again, just like in the song. Because he believes the safest high is no high, and any attempts to get high are just a sickness to be treated.
And this is what I can't get hip to medical pot as the path to legalization. I just hate the idea that the only way you can justify having pot is by declaring yourself to be sick. Can't you just like the stuff? Why do we have to consider a desire to change your mental state an illness? I say "prove it's an illness, before you ban it. It's not on me to prove it's not one". But then I'm an evil liberal. I don't see the death of pot because it got all the fun extracted out of it when they made it only help granddad with his cancer as a good thing. I see it as a shocking indictment on our fucking weak willed culture allowed itself to be marched to the nuthouse just to get a hit.
Just in case anyone doesn't know what song I'm referring to:
good post the above one.....
....oh my god...it's like 45 mins to go b4 the ban...shit...
all i have is this star-gate shit....fuck...
i don't have a vaporizer...the cops took mine...shit....
what should i do...only 30 mins before illegality?
smoke them all?
just smoke it bro
Crystal Castles - Crimewave
White Lies - Death
the last stargate kicked in..sweet
White Lies - 4Music Film
there we go...
now lets round them up.....
enjoy your evening!
SNEAKER PIMPS - "Spin Spin Sugar"
,,,mmm pst midnight...and the weld has not ended...
carry on regardless then....
i know.... it's illegal now
but hell.... stargate 24 kick in..smoked with lemon grass....and we are going hardcore..
and wee end in the milkey way....
thanks stargate 24...good value on the last nite....
Funny how this has all been left to Peter Dunne to front as well - he is after all only the associate Health Minister, I don't recall the actual Minister saying much about it at all, compartmentalise the damage and public perception - and National usually have big bouncers on their 'Doors of Perception', but it's looking like their 'guest list' may drag them down anyway...